by Tyler Cowen
on December 9, 2011 at 11:59 am
in Uncategorized |
1. Claims about dating finance pros.
2. ESP proponents claim that ESP skeptics are psychic, and use their powers to suppress ESP.
3. One white supremacist critique of libertarianism, via www.bookforum.com.
4. Lee Perry pleads for Paul McCartney.
5. Is Human Action “compulsively listenable”?
If we secret-psychics don’t keep our powers hidden from the MAAAAAAN, we’ll all be locked up and forced to do their bidding. I’ve seen “Scanners”. Or at least the one clip where the head explodes.
With sites like The Browser and bookforum (I think also bookslut, but that’s more understand because the site doesn’t make it easy) after giving the hat-tip you link to the front page. But if readers check out the permalink they’ll see a lot more there.
#1 is a hilarious article but I’m sure this blog will be clamoring for the bailouts of these guys when the next big crisis hits. I guess these are Cowen’s idea of non-ZMP workers>
Now I’m confused. I thought we were the ones who wanted to liquidate^3.
You would think that but Tyler Cowen’s first and foremost job as an economist is to stand up for the interests of people like this, he’s essentially a glorified PR guy. He won’t come out directly in favour of bailouts but when the next crisis hits he’ll start posting all kinds of links to people arguing for taxpayer assistance to Wall St. as a kind of subtle poke in that direction.
yep Tyler came on here to loudly say: “the Paulson plan is better than nothing” at the critical moment when thousands of Americans were calling their congressional reps for the first time to beg them not to do it.
NYT just happened to hire and elevate the one libertarian in favor of bailouts and increased powers for the Federal Reserve. Ya right…also notice how Tyler is pretty sympathetic and accepting of the all the wars and all the lies used to promote them?
I mostly come here to see what line of propaganda they are currently using to try and convert libertarian leaning folks into supporters of big government.
CBBB is right.
Oh whenever it comes time to stand up against an important intrusion by government Cowen is completely silent. On the other hand blog posts about how more students need to major in STEM because of all the “good jobs out there for honest, hardworking, STEM majors” come fast and furious.
Yes, God hates moderates and nuance.
It’s about alternatives. Non-STEM jobs suck more. And in the future, there will probably be more global trade and services denominated in English aren’t going to fly.
What about getting a STEM degree and having NO job? That sucks the MOST
@Cliff: Actually yes:
“So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth” Rev. 3:16
4. Well dang, send that to Obama. Let’s get this pot thing done.
Note that the women in question did sleep with these bankers, despite all their complaints. So obviously what they are doing is working.
Well yeah, that’s the best part of the article everyone involved is ridiculous.
Don’t ruin this – it’s absolutely factual. In fact it’s probably worse then they say.
+1 to asdf
And can any of the reports be trusted as factual? What’s more unreliable than someone describing an ex?
Oops I replied to the wrong person. Any way in my opinion there’s nothing better then a big train wreck so as far as I’m concerned it’s all totally accurate.
“Yeah, I meant it when I said that I’d treat you like a princess. A PILF.”
#2: Life imitates art. Or at least imitates Mage: The Awakening.
That game can explain almost everything. The strange combination of solipsism, relativism, and postmodernism that makes it so interesting as a game also makes it resemble everything.
Given the nature of this blog, I’m impressed no one has mentioned the externalities of psychic suppression and the effects of government regulation to mitigate such a problem.
… and now I’ve gone and done it.
There will not be any discussion about morality because the girls from #1 did not owe the guys any money. Maybe only about morality of publishing private e-mails when it hurts the 1%.
Jews benefit from open, individualistic societies in which barriers to upward mobility are removed, in which people are viewed as individuals rather than as members of groups, and in which intellectual discourse is not prescribed by institutions like the Catholic Church that are not dominated by Jews.
Jews and everyone else.
#3 looks like a normal site, and pretends it is. Until you start reading it …moonbattery.
For all that they claim to advocate for WASP’s, I’m always struck by how little nationalist guys seem to think of actual white people.
Apparently, if you don’t structure every facet of life to their direct advantage, white people are DOOOOOOMED. How does one justify that next to the belief that white people are somehow ethnically superior?
Oh, and obviously I think both of those beliefs are bullocks, in case that wasn’t clear from my above comment.
I usually note that if the Jews really were responsible for everything WN’s accuse them of, they really would be a master race and we would have little choice but to submit.
Dispute the gas chamber story in Western Europe and see what happens to you.
- Some people just think, aesthetically, hothouse orchids are superior flowers, even if they have a lot of vulnerabilities and do not really yield much more than aesthetic superiority, to say, daffs or tulips. We would probably not want to generally accept the axioms required to “prove” that this kind of perspective is wrong. Really, it’s no more “wrong” to prefer homogenity of a particular stripe than diversity on purely aesthetic grounds, and no more wrong to be motivated by an aesthetic preference for a particular aesthetic than for diversity (and we accept that it it right and wrong to be aesthetically motivated to varying degrees!).
- Just as people do not believe that the existance of superior individuals implies that you should give up your self interest, or really has mujch to say about it, some feel this way regarding groups, i.e. just as I am self and am not required to enslave myself to Tyler Cowen or really care much about his survival despite the fact that he is likely smarter and more economically productive than me, the same is implied regarding groups. I don’t really see much of an real “argument” that in-group bias is provably less moral than self bias.
Of course, many people defend self bias as ultimately merely a means to serve utilitarian unbiased ends (maximizing utility for all via the invisible hand), but I’m not aware that many pro in group bias people do.
It amuses, and repulses, that racists keep using “evolution” as an argument. Goes to show that facts don’t actually matter that much. In other news, string theory means that I get to drink your milkshake.
What facts exactly?
What about the fact that anti-racism is reducing the biological fitness of individuals belonging to groups with sub-replacement fertility?
The facts I was alluding to are that a biological theory of change does not speak to tribal identification or ethics.
This is quite similar to people assuming that economics implies moral truths. Neutron transport theory does not inform how I should treat my pets, either.
“a biological theory of change ”
Evolutionary theories are in fact equilibrium theories. Your comments on how “racists” appeal to such theories obviously do not need to be taken seriously.
Various responses rather than one (because I think MR readers should be privileged to be able to read all my musings in response to your post and those don’t come together in a seamless whole!):
- Evolution isn’t an argument it’s true. It is correct that just as evolution isn’t an argument to act in self interest (so what if you evolved to do that, and won’t have any descendents if you won’t, and will be replaced by the descendents of people who do act in their self interest? that’s not really an argument, just justifying your behaviour as the evolutionary stable strategy), it isn’t an argument to act in group interest.
- But just as evolution can help to bolster the idea that individuals are real things in the sense of being a collection of subjective states and separate organs that are meaningfully bundled together as a real thing by the evolutionary rationale (i.e. this collective of potentially atomised organs and states has a real evolutionary telos as an individual), the same is true of groups.
(Although in reality, group selection theory is on ropier ground than individual level selection.)
- If I can get more meta, evolution, though, is also, on another level, an argument that you don’t really need an argument – evolution allows for moral codes which emerge as a function of selective forces, not a truth that is out there in the universe and can be known and articulated through natural language or logical or philosophical languages or maths. Evolution permits that the fundamentals of our self, what it means to be human and what is moral, is not necessarily something which can be articulated in any form of language (i.e. “an argument”).
- There’s also a difference between saying “Ethnic groups are functionally real and distinct and interested parties in evolution by natural selection” and saying “Ethnic groups are relatively real things that are the outcome of more general evolutionary process as detected through genomics”. The former relies on the latter, but the latter can be true independently of the former. That latter is still a big help to any kind of philosophy that supports acting in an ethnic group interest, rather than an individual or impartial (utilitarian) interest.
Re 2: So suppose people who believe in ESP find it and people who are skeptics don’t. Then the only people who could run the experiments are people with truly open minds. Assuming that such people could be identified (ie assuming that self-identification is both accurate and incapable of dissembling) wouldn’t either the failure or the success of the experiment prove ESP? Success, because, well, it’s a success, and failure because it would give credence to the possibility that there is such a thing as ESP which skeptics can block. But if either failure or success would prove ESP, then there’s no reason to run the experiment,.
I understand that Tyler endeavors to be both stupid and dishonest (that’s how he maintains his status as a safe, “free market” court jester), but I’m wondering on what basis he claims that Kevin MacDonald is a “white supremacist”? MacDonald should learn some economics, to be sure, but that’s a different story. He does note (and carefully documents) that Jews essentially practice a form of ethnic protectionism. You don’t have to endorse “what’s good for the goose is good for the gander” to understand this important point.
Jews throughout history have cooperated as a community to survive in the face of extremely harsh economic and social conditions (as have all other ethnoreligious groups). Protectionism, however, implies that they benefited at the expense of others, which is plainly false.
You’re begging the question, of course, as to why, exactly, Jews often faced these conditions. Smoke, but no fire?
At some point, looking out for your own looks a lot like racism, right?
I don’t know; what are you referring to?
#3: [Under a libertarian regime] “parents could sell their children into slavery.”
No that is true, in fact libertarians love that idea generally.
On your authority. Right.
libertarians believe liberty to be an inalienable right. you cannot sell yourself into slavery, let alone your children.
Walter Block is the lone exemption. He believes its ok to sell one-self into slavery, but never anyone else.
Do parents have the liberty to abandon their children if their relationship isn’t working out?
Children are a massive problem for libertarian ideology, fortunately social norms about child-rearing are so strong that libertarians end up sticking to topics like taxes and campaign finance.
I think that’s pretty much a straw man argument. Have you ever actually heard a libertarian say that children are a problem to freedom? I have heard that argument from pro-abortionists, but they weren’t necessarily libertarian.
The question of children is problematic in *any* political ideology, libertarianism is not unique in any way here.
Libertarians believe that the moral question of obligations to children should not necessarily be codified in law. Maybe they’re wrong about that, but who seriously takes the monstrous position that anything immoral should be illegal?
Of course libertarians don’t say that children are a problem for freedom, that goes against the myth that they have some logically consistent ideology all of whose conclusions can be reasoned from first principles.
It is true that children are a problem for all ideologies. Libertarianism is a bit distinct from other political ideologies in that it is more purist and absolutist. More mainstream political thinking is a mishmash that values conflicting things — most people think that individual freedom is very important but that societies should also restrict individual freedom.
Mainstream political ideologies are rent-seeking coalitions. Their ideologies are based on political compromise to make sure that they don’t get their ox gored.
Libertarians don’t believe parents have the “liberty” to neglect their children, if by “liberty” you mean to be free of any and all consequences (such as being ostracized or subject to other grave social pressures). To repeat, the question concerns who is justified in employing force against neglectful parents and why; i.e. legal codification of force. Maybe libertarians haven’t provided satisfactory answers to this question, but they don’t settle for inconsistent mismashes (which Popeye semi-admits he’s happy with).
William D. Hamilton, widely recognized as one of the greatest evolutionary theorists of the 20th century, agreed with the general theme of Kevin MacDonald’s work on the evolutionary biology of Jews and Judaism:
“It is hard to discern the root in the place where I usually look for roots of our strong emotions, the part deepest in us, our biology and evolution; even a recent treatise on this subject, much as I agree with its general theme, seems to me hardly to reach to this point of the discussion.34,36″
“Recent treatise on this subject” refers to a couple of books by MacDonald, as the citations 34 and 36 indicate.
So did the eminent anthropologist Sir Arthur Keith:
Comments on this entry are closed.
Previous post: Medical Patents Must Die
Next post: Markets in everything
Email Tyler Cowen
Follow Tyler on Twitter
Email Alex Tabarrok
Follow Alex on Twitter
Subscribe in a reader
Follow Us on Twitter
Marginal Revolution on Twitter Counter.com
Get smart with the Thesis WordPress Theme from DIYthemes.