He's quite correct.

Incidently, a person usually gets most of their orders from a boss at
work rather than any government official.

Except the HSE.

__________________
The politics.ie definition of
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
.

[QUOTE=feargach;1960412]Great little essay. "I'm Still Not a Libertarian (so I guess that means I'm opposed to personal freedom)"

http://world.std.com/~mhuben/pk-is-against-liberty.html

He says:

"The first fallacy is one I call the Fallacy of Revolution. It can be found in any movement that seeks to radically revise the underpinnings of society, whether by abolishing money, imposing a theocracy, eliminating undesirable ethnic groups, repealing all law, organizing everyone's diet according to principles of macrobiotics, or whatever other secret of a perfect society any group comes up with. The fallacy can be expressed more or less as follows:

By making these radical changes, we are removing the root cause of all the failures and evils of society as it presently stands. This will eliminate all of the existing problems, and since we have no knowledge of what new problems might arise, we can assume there will be none. Everything will work right, because there are no foreseeable things that can go wrong."

[QUOTE]

I haven't read the whole article, but the above seems common sense to me.
Everything new creates new problems.
Change can only be gradually, or gradually accepted.
We always need something familiar to hold on in which context we can interprete and accept something new. That's basic to human perception and understanding. Because new is only relevant to us, and makes sense, on the basis of what we already know/have experienced.

You guys are still guilty of the fallacy of revolution though.

__________________
"She'll hold together. Hear me, baby? Hold together!"

Crude straw men. Equating a moderate libertarian with a Marxist ideologue is just silly. Marxism involves a whole series of assumptions about human nature which are intrinsic to its utopic vision. It assumes that man is solely a material being and that the key to his happiness lies in creating an earthly economic eschaton. Hence the preposterous claims about the fruits of the revolution.

__________________
"The perfect liberty they seek is the liberty of making slaves of other people." -- Abraham Lincoln


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Good points. I might add that I decided to blog about this critique:

Some Guy’s Critique of Libertarianism Irish Liberty Forum

It's a pretty easy demolition job, didn't need any mental contortions.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
¦
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Somewhat of a tangent, looking at 20000's site I saw this in recent posts: "Krugman Demanded a Housing Bubble "

It's a famous internet trope that Krugman was calling for a new bubble when, if you read the article and the rest of Krugman's writing on the subject, you see he was wholly against the bubble.

It is obviously not a demand, and is clearly in opposition to bubbles (as nearly all economists are), it is simply an analysis of the Fed's options for fighting the recession and avoiding deflation.

From P. Krugman himself:
"Guys, read it again. It wasn’t a piece of policy advocacy, it was just economic analysis. What I said was that the only way the Fed could get traction would be if it could inflate a housing bubble. And that’s just what happened."

Here's another quote from the same article by Krugman. It is blatantly hostile to the notion of tax cuts in the period concerned, and hardly cosy about bubbles:

"Bear in mind also that government officials have a stake in accentuating the positive. The (Bush) administration needs a recovery because, with deficits exploding, the only way it can justify that tax cut is by pretending that it was just what the economy needed. Mr. Greenspan needs one to avoid awkward questions about his own role in creating the stock market bubble."

Wait, a second, 20000miles has told us that Krugman is for bubbles. Why then, would Krugman, in the very same article he quotes, say that Greenspan might have to face "awkward questions" about creating a bubble. If Krugman is pro-bubble, what's awkward about it?

This is simply another example of the level of intellectual honesty you're dealing with here when you read Misesian posts on here.

__________________
When you see the words "Mises" or "Hayek" in someone's post, just ask yourself: do I really want to ban paper money and go back to gold?

You have to pity the kind of people who buy into conspiracy theories. I find the following to be the saddest words on the internet: "Re: connection between Bilderberg puppet lady gaga and viral outbreak in ukraine "

The same Krugman that backs Obammy and his healthcare plan and asked this question.

__________________
The trifling economy of paper, as a cheaper medium, or its convenience for transmission, weighs nothing in opposition to the advantages of the precious metals... it is liable to be abused, has been, is, and forever will be abused, in every country in which it is permitted." --Thomas Jefferson to John W. Eppes, 1813.

Well, I would consider the Irish health care system to be terrible, but I think Krugman mmmmmmmaaaaaay have been getting at how much I would prefer to live under the US health care system. And I would prefer to have my fingernails pulled out than switch from any European health care system to the US model.

I wonder whether those Canadians in the audience were planning on migrating South to sample the joys of the US health care system. Or were they planning to stick with their own one, "terrible" though it may be.

__________________
When you see the words "Mises" or "Hayek" in someone's post, just ask yourself: do I really want to ban paper money and go back to gold?

You have to pity the kind of people who buy into conspiracy theories. I find the following to be the saddest words on the internet: "Re: connection between Bilderberg puppet lady gaga and viral outbreak in ukraine "

At best, Paul Krugman could argue that he did advocate another bubble, (after all he did imply that the Fed needed to create another one). If Krugman is as anti-bubble as feargach claims he is, why did PK say there was a need for a bubble? Krugman could cling to the less admirable position of having advocated a bubble and then thinking that Greenspan could nip it in the bud. So he was dead wrong on all counts. But let there be no doubt as to Krugman's intellectual pedigree:

Permanent bubble economy anyone!!??

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
¦
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.