I wonder if this is one of the professors who has been vilified on hate radio.
The professor, Tyler Cowen, writes a libertarian blog, and a fairly well-regarded one at that. While his views may well indeed be opposed to the Limbaughs and the Hannitys of the world, people like him donāt usually get called out like the Democrats do. I doubt the average listener of āhate radioā knows who he is.
OH well, I was told here that Libertarians are all sociopaths. So he probably deserved it.
Yes the stochastic terrorism is almost strictly aimed at liberals; exceptions are accidental. Also, I have never heard of a well-regarded Libertarian. I assume this means well-regarded by other Libertarians, and not actual economists?
Ironically, the school says Cowen was teaching a unit on vigilantes ā so some students may have initially thought that the situation was fake.
Way to go. Now those students may NEVER learn whether or not vigilantism is a good or bad thing.
People who try to place others under citizenās arrest, typically come off looking like this guy: http://youtu.be/9efgLHgsBmM
I feel like Iām missing, well, the whole story here, and the linked article wasnāt much help, nor was anything else I can find via a quick Google search. What was his position on vigilantes, and did the attacker think he had some basis for āarrestingā him, or was it just a protest against his position on vigilantism?
*citation needed
Sociopaths might be a bit extreme. Dyscalculiatic anarchists is a better description.
Itās worth looking at Economics and Politics by Paul Krugman - The Conscience of a Liberal - The New York Times
Despite his disagreements with him, Paul Krugman called Milton Friedman āa great man and a great economist.ā
Tyler Cowen is a supreme douche, he got what was coming to him IMO. Google the rat bastard if youāre really interested, heās not worth anymore of my time frankly.
Paul Krugman also acknowledges the parts of Friedmanās ideas that most current libertarians ignore, like his support for a negative income tax for low-income brackets.
Never have I heard a more intellectually vigorous defense of physical assault. Well done, sir!
I donāt know that āmost current libertariansā ignore that, at all.
http://reason.com/archives/2014/02/19/time-for-a-guaranteed-income
I think a big problem with the ālibertarianā label (and I donāt consider myself a libertarian, btw), is that people think it means one thing. But there are all kinds of libertarians, from anarchists to supporters of social safety nets and environmental regulations; just as there are all kinds of liberals, from socialists to Obama supporters.
The venom one sees here when a libertarian is mentioned (I donāt mean posts like yours) is really no different in quality than the responses you see at places like Red State and Free Republic when theyāre talking about Obama.
Itās worth remembering that libertarian and socialist are not mutually exclusive terms. Libertarian socialists also tend to get a bit upset if they are called liberal (they are revolutionary, liberals are reformists).
In theory, libertarianism is also for breaking up patent monopolies. You wonāt ever hear a public libertarian say anything like that, given that their livelihood depends on piles of cash from the supposed libertarians who own all the IP and graciously create all our jobs.
While a guaranteed income has been advocated by a number of libertarians, Iāve always got the sense itās a distinctly minority position within libertarianism. Check out the comments on the Reason piece for example, theyāre overwhelmingly opposed to it as not being consistent with libertarianism on moral grounds, like any other welfare program. Of course this reveals that most libertarians are about defending existing property distribution rather than actual freedom, because libertarian guaranteed income advocates at least realize the unequal relationship between employer and employee means itās not a fully free one. A guaranteed income would give people real freedom to choose their work without being forced into exploitive economic relationships to avoid starvation.
I agree with this. Comments on Reason are a mixed bag, but mostly lots of reflexive rejection of government-based solutions. The writers for Reason seem to be a lot more liberal than the readers.
I donāt know. There are more and more speaking out against it.
Thereās definitely a debate in the community on the issue.
