That’s not an entirely unfair characterization of libertarianism in general however. Particularly for those who argue for it on moral grounds.
I suppose considering how heavily money driven libertarian politics are, it probably matters more what Reason writers think, as they have typically represented the corporate wing of it.
Well, really, all “isms” tend to be reflexive in their rejection of one thing or another, especially people who tie their morality into their “ism.” But on the whole, I don’t find more reactionary thinking coming from libertarians than from liberals or conservatives.
What is (are) “the corporate wing” of libertarian politics?
Who’s to say this wasn’t a legitimate citizen’s arrest? or is that suddenly the sole providence of the government? A libertarian of any stripe, I should think, would welcome this sort of justice rather than the overly bureaucratic kind.
Dunno… seemed more “assaulty” to me. It’s not like the guy was actively engaged in a crime (except maybe giving a shitty lecture?), but this guy came in during a lecture, sprayed the guy with pepper spray (possibly injuring some of the students, as well, it seems), and ran away. How is that a citizen’s arrest? If he had detained him and called a cop, okay, you might have a leg to stand on here. I don’t know this guy that he “arrested” or what he did, but if he was a threat to the community, detaining and waiting for the cops is usually the best strategy, no matter how dodgy we might or might not think state power is…
I thought it was obvious that this was done by someone opposed to the theories in “An Economist Gets Lunch.”
Thank you! Its nice to be appreciated for one’s work.
Okay, okay. Here’s one piece that show’s one reason I dislike Cowen so much: http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/11/desperate-effort-by-tyler-cowen-and-megan-mcardle-to-silence-discussion-about-income-inequality.html.
The fact that he is simpatico with Megan McArdle alone is enough to label him a turd blossom. That he defines “workplace coercion” in terms of theft by low level employees rather than what it really is – threatening workers in order to gain advantage and abuse their weakness relative to management – displays his severe ideological blindness and pigheaded denial of reality:
He’s an odious little cretin who carries water for the plutocracy. First against the wall and all that ;).
Professor and pundit Tyler Cowen was lecturing about vigilantism
Should’ve seen it coming?
The venom one sees here when a libertarian is mentioned (I don’t mean posts like yours) is really no different in quality than the responses you see at places like Red State and Free Republic when they’re talking about Obama.
95 percent of the time I’m usually already wondering what the fuck is wrong with some person before I later find out they’re a libertarian (and by that time I’m already guessing they are). The label “libertarian” itself is often a warning, but the venom doesn’t usually engage until they start to talk.
A citizen’s arrest has numerous elements that must be satisfied to be legitimate. The primary one: A crime must have been committed by that person. No ands, ifs, buts, or hemming and hawwing about it. Private citizens do not enjoy the same immunity as police do. There is no “probable cause” standard for arrest, you must only have arrested them for a crime that they actually committed. No whoopsies or takesies-backsies.
Then, when you do arrest someone, you “arrest” them. You don’t engage in willful and gratuitous battery. Walking up to someone and macing them in the face when you haven’t received an iota of resistance isn’t protected just because you’re muttering incantations of legal mumbo-jumbo. It’s like people who think that the police can’t arrest them because they use careful wording and are “sovereign citizens”. It’s nonsense. There are no “magic words” in law.
Interesting piece on the idea of a guaranteed income. What seems to be missing is the “reason” behind it - aside from purely practical (and fiscal) concerns, what is the philosophical libertarian principle behind it?
I would assert that a guaranteed minimum income is the right of every citizen who lives in a country that allows property ownership. It is the just compensation for the fact that their natural right to “own” the ground they stand on, build their own shelter and feed themselves from the land. All those rights have been taken away through property law, without compensation. A guaranteed income would compensate for that.
I’m not a libertarian, but at least that reasoning allows for a libertarian to justify “entitlement” programs.
what we don’t know is what the professor is accused of. how is it in any way possible to determine right and wrong in this situation without that knowledge? what i do know is that the government doesn’t like their authority stepped on and they don’t necessarily give a damn (even if they know) what the law is. they just like to jump in and do what seems right at the time with no regard for truth or justice.
We don’t know, because the guy did not come in and detain him and call the police, he came in and assaulted the guy. Why do it in the middle of a lecture, in front of a bunch of people? There is really no other way to describe it.
You might think that the government is too authoritarian, and given what we know about how power works, and the realities of NSA surveillance (aided in that by the work of private corporations, BTW), you may even be correct. However, clearly they guy just wanted to assault him, not accuse him of a crime and have him go through the criminal justice system. The guy who pepper sprayed this professor committed a crime… and keep in mind, that this prof is libertarian, so he might just agree with you about the power of the government…
Well there goes J.K. Rowling’s sexy follow-up series about Hogwart’s Law…
What you said, basically.
Well, if I had known that he had a different opinion on the meaning and implications of income equality; if I had known that he actually agreed with a woman whose opinions on the economy and the proper role of government in a free society differed so greatly from yours, then I would have been sorely tempted to physically assault the man, myself!
I mean, the nerve to come to conclusions regarding the distribution of wealth based on subjective interpretations of notoriously complex data! What does he think he is, an economist or something? Pepper spray is too good for him!
I don’t disagree with you regarding his opinions on many things, I’m sure. But economists are like psychologists; they’re usually wrong half the time and that’s part of the process.
Probably attacked for his douchey restaurant reviews…
He has also kept a pretentious food blog for years.
I would have to study a LOT of libertarian philosophy to understand what, besides practical and fiscal concerns, is behind the support. Only because there is such a diversity of thought among those who consider themselves to be libertarians. I mean, the two most prominent faces of Reason magazine, Matt Welch and Nick Gillespie, support social safety nets, and Welch wrote an essay on how much better healthcare was in France compared to the U.S… I know that they say their belief in environmental regulations is based on the fact that we all own the environment.
I suspect some libertarians can’t deny themselves the sense of human compassion that’s innate in most of us, and so make allowances for programs that serve people in need. However, I’m sure there’s a great disagreement about who those people are.
I wouldn’t be surprised if some libertarians justified a guaranteed income with the reasoning you’ve described, but the concept of “rights” is a very, very elusive and mysterious philosophy. I don’t think I believe in positive rights, but ask me again tomorrow!
I disagree. The reactionary part of libertarianism, especially in regards to contemporary American liberalism, is how it gives private tyranny a free pass under the guise of “liberty”. While libertarians would correctly say it wrong for the state to determine who you can or can’t marry, they usually defend an employer’s ability to do that for you. And the awful irony being that it still requires the state to enforce the discrimination of private tyrants.
Well technically all of it is, but the “corporate wing” is the reason why economic deregulation has been more successfully achieved than drug legalization. Drug legalization may be consistent with libertarianism (and often touted by libertarians to appeal to others) , but deregulation offers much higher returns to the big libertarian donors, so resources are concentrated there.
In the country I live in, we presume he’s innocent until proven guilty.
