Assorted links

by on January 22, 2012 at 7:43 pm in Uncategorized | Permalink

1. An outline of libertarian class analysis.

2. Eric Schwitzgebel on “crazyism”, and other interesting matters.

3. David Colander’s code of ethics for economists (pdf).

4. Do we in fact become more conservative as we age?

5. Good essay on the euro predicament.

Bill January 22, 2012 at 8:36 pm

Re: Do we become more conservative as we age.

No, according to Newt, we become polyamourous as we get older and get too busy. (Had to use that new word I just learned, and was looking for a way to use it in a sentence.)

Am waiting for the reporter to ask: Are you a polyamourist or a thespian.

John David Galt January 22, 2012 at 8:47 pm

That “libertarian class analysis” essay is pure hooey, and the notion of using it as a litmus test for who is a “real libertarian” is more so.

David Friedman debunks “libertarian class analysis” beginning at page 79 of
http://daviddfriedman.com/The_Machinery_of_Freedom_.pdf
I dare say that every real libertarian has known this for years.

As for Lew Rockwell, he is the loony who published the racist newsletters in Ron Paul’s name. If there is anyone left who hasn’t dismissed him as a crank, I’d like to know why.

NAME REDACTED January 22, 2012 at 8:50 pm

I hate it when people use the word crank this way. The original meaning was someone who only offered complains and pointed out problems without suggestions.

John David Galt January 23, 2012 at 2:06 am

Make that “without offering *constructive* suggestions” and it’s at least arguably true.

GiT January 23, 2012 at 5:50 am

I’m not sure what’s funnier, the libertarian class analysis bibliography or the notion that David Friedman debunked it with a silly page and a half argument.

In any case the whole thing recalls Foucault’s treatment of race war and historico-political discourse. Another argument folded into the history of systems of thought, I suppose…

Jamie January 23, 2012 at 9:07 am

Exactly. One would think he’s making Foucault’s argument for him:

“An understanding of power elite analysis is the “litmus test” separating real libertarians from alternative lifestyle dilettantes dabbling in free market theory.”

byomtov January 25, 2012 at 12:09 pm

Pure hooey indeed.

It looks like a compendium of nutcase conspiracy theories.

Chefmarty January 22, 2012 at 9:01 pm

Re: #4 – No. Thanks for asking!

dearieme January 22, 2012 at 9:05 pm

Do we in fact become more conservative as we age?

No: we become reactionary.

Willitts January 22, 2012 at 9:22 pm

Do we become more conservative with age?

No, we become fully vested in the status quo.

Skip Intro January 24, 2012 at 9:20 am

+1

JWatts January 24, 2012 at 11:21 am

+1, (Assuming a modern state run retirement system)

Sandeep January 22, 2012 at 9:54 pm

From #4 :
Amidst the bipartisan banter of election season, there persists an enduring belief that people get more conservative as they age — making older people more likely to vote for Republican candidates.

In fact, studies show that people may actually get more liberal over time when it comes to certain kinds of beliefs. That suggests that we are not pre-determined to get stodgy,…
Contrary to popular belief, old age can be an open-minded and enlightening time.

In other words, the article takes for granted that favoring republicans is equivalent to being stodgy, non-open-minded and whatnot. Yet another instance of cheap name calling.

joshua January 23, 2012 at 8:08 am

Ad Hominem Detected: +10 For Sandeep!

Miguel Madeira January 23, 2012 at 8:46 am

I think the problem here is a conbfusion in two possible meanings of “conservative”: we are talking about conservative in a sociological sense (“a person who distruts of change”) or in a political sense (“a person who favours law and order, a strong defense, family values, etc.”)?; it is perfectly possible to be conservative in one sense without being in the other.

And, in the socialogical sense, makes sense “conservatives” being “stodgy, non-open-minded…”, etc. It is almost the meaning of the word

Sandeep January 23, 2012 at 12:35 pm

Yes, but I respect the authors’ intelligence, and hence tend to believe that this confusion is intentional.

JWatts January 24, 2012 at 11:26 am

+1
Particularly when the author lays out this chain:
1) Conservative = Republican
2) conservative = stodgy
3) liberal = open-minded and enlightening

Jamie_NYC January 22, 2012 at 11:12 pm

#5: It’s evident that the period of dithering and equivocation is over. It’s time to blame Wall Street!

Anon. January 23, 2012 at 2:43 am

Completely off topic, but I’ve been trying to find some data on the Greek PSI thing and failing badly, so I’m betting on the MR commenters. Do we know what % of Greece’s debt is held by the private sector? And how many of those who own that debt are actually on the table for the write-down?

Tom January 23, 2012 at 8:46 am

#4 I’ve always took “tolerant and more open-minded” as more of a Republican trait than Democratic.

t January 23, 2012 at 9:37 am

Another link (from ALDaily) which might contribute to the argument that the economic value of the Internet is not that high:
http://chronicle.com/article/Gluttony-Goes-Viral/130285/

The Other Jim January 23, 2012 at 10:55 am

>Do we in fact become more conservative as we age?

Better question: do we come to insanely stupid conclusions when we equate “conservative” with “close-minded”?

Why, yes! Yes we do!

Miguel Madeira January 23, 2012 at 12:18 pm

If we define “conservative” in the sense of “traditionalist”, “conventional”, “distrutsful of change”, “deferent to the established institutions”, etc., I think that makes some sense to assume that “conservatives” will tend to be “close-minded” (although the opposite is not true – an “anti-conservative” could also be “close-minded”).

Like I said above, what confuses this is the mix between “conservative” in the sociological sense, and the specifical meaning that the word “conservative” has in the political terminology of some countries (where we can see political “conservatives” making speechs against the “establishment” and the “elites”, where the respect by establishment and elites are almost the definig trait of sociological “conservatism”)

axa January 23, 2012 at 5:13 pm

#2, “crazyism? Kurt Godel talked about axiomatic systems and their failures: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_G%C3%B6del#The_Incompleteness_Theorem

Mr. Schwitzgebel just presents a narrow view from a broader logic/math concept. And it is really curious that in the middle of this “last-name quoting contest” interview, never mentioned Mr. Godel’s work.

GiT January 23, 2012 at 7:11 pm

Schwitzgebel wasn’t talking about the completeness of axiomatic systems. Why is Godel relevant? It’s not what he’s interested in. Godel doesn’t tell us anything about why metaphysicians make conclusions that seem crazy. Note that crazy means neither inconsistent nor incomplete, but simply inconsistent with common sense. The completeness or consistency of any metaphysics is irrelevant – only its relation to common sense matters for whether or not the system is ‘crazy.’

Max Rockbin January 24, 2012 at 12:35 am

Do you endorse your links? Your linking to an article that says “studies show” people don’t get more conservative. What studies? Doesn’t say.
This is just junk. It shouldn’t be encouraged with a link.

JWatts January 24, 2012 at 11:32 am

I don’t think that TC means to endorse the links that he provides sans commentary. He posts interesting links and lets the readers chew over it. A bad article can still make for interesting reading.

The Hat of the Three-Toed Man-Baby January 25, 2012 at 3:11 pm

Everyone is ignoring the pile of crap that Colander vomited onto the Internet with that piece-of-dung screed.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: