I considered myself a libertarian for a long time. Will Wilkinson, whose politics I can’t seem to differentiate from Matthew Yglesias’s, is perhaps the best example of what’s wrong with libertarianism. Here – in which he takes lots of words to suggest that Ron Paul doesn’t like Mexicans and blacks – is a classic example of the problem with libertarianism.

One official part of the US government is suing another unofficial part of the US government. If they win, they can pay themselves. It’s really going to be fun to see how Fannie and Freddie get resolved.

Zimbabwe: getting worse all the time.

The Zambian space program.

Yglesias: "one of my pet ideas is that we ought to be pushing for an affirmative ‘right to vote’ in the constitution." My newest pet ideas is whatever is as different from that idea as possible. Note that he’s insinuating that this would not even allow people to be denied the "right" to vote if they can’t present a photo ID. Photo IDs, after all, are racist or some such.

Black people are different than white people.

Austrian capital theory.

Can your understanding of the way the US government works encompass this?

Jim on marriage.

Black people, government and unemployment.

The men who created feminism.

Aretae on the circularity of history. I’m sure he sees this is purely progressive terms, but the circularity is striking. It’ll be interesting to see whether caveman values lead to caveman levels of productivity.

Is Tyler Cowen starting to oppose unlimited, low-skilled immigration? Heh.


No, it is this man, who exists,
Who is history; who is, I’m sure,
The future; and the drama is his,
As dangerous as elegant. His
Demons, made by him, are sent
By the great gods to scourge him,
And have doubtless barely started.
As such these creatures are divine,
Like the tiger or the killer whale,
And must not be disrespected:
A slice of advice both prudent
And compliant with federal law.


12 Responses to Randoms

  1. anon says:

    That prospect article calls petworth a historically black neighborhood… is that another case of leftist history starting circa 1968?

  2. B says:

    Can you expand a bit on the Austrian capital theory thing?

    • Foseti says:

      I haven’t read the whole article yet, but I’ll write something if it’s interesting. The gist of Austrian capital theory is that they believe mis-allocation of capital causes the economic cycle. When someone (i.e. central bankers) monkey with interest rates (i.e. the price of capital) mis-allocation of capital is inevitable.

  3. Bill says:

    Will Wilkinson, whose politics I can’t seem to differentiate from Matthew Yglesias’s

    The curious thing is that Wilkinson and Yglesias seem to think there are VERY IMPORTANT differences.

    • Handle says:

      I suppose the question is how do they differ on actual policy (as opposed to mere ‘rationales’) on issues that matter to you. Wilkinson helped with the attempt at “Liberaltarianism” which somehow combines Rawls and Hayek (“Rawlsekian” I think he coined it) – and taking Rawls seriously is a good indicator of a certain kind of bias.

      Both are deeply Internationalist / Universalist in outlook, which leads them to be open borders both in terms of immigration and trade. Both are hostile to any role for a government preference for traditional morals and family structure. Both have hair-triggers with playing the “Racist!” card. Both hate the War on Terror. Both would be comfortable hanging out with the establishment bloggers and Megan McArdle and Tyler Cowen and Ezra Klein and would probably share the same social set of friends that refrain from ostracizing each other – which is the most revealing guide to how effectively important the differences between pundits really are.

    • Alrenous says:

      Of course. It’s the conoisseur effect. Being so close to the subject matter (doesn’t get closer than identical) they can discriminate very fine differences. Identical twins also see large differences between themselves.

  4. Tschafer says:

    If we just used Matthew Yglesias and Will Wilkinson as compasses pointing south, and did the exact opposite of what they advocated, I have no doubt the country and the world would be better off. The primary difference between Wilkinson and Yglesias as near as I can tell is that Wilkinson is wrong 95 times out of a hundred, and Yglesias 99 times out of a hundred. Not really much to choose from…

  5. Tschafer says:

    Moldbug’s political commentary is going through a bad patch right now, but his poetry is getting better, and that’s a good tradeoff – political bloggers are a dime a dozen, but really good poets who can capture the spirit of our bizzare age are priceless…

  6. Alrenous says:

    Gibson: Some rightists complain that USG is exporting jobs. They think it’s not on purpose. Heh.

    Feminism: thanks Foseti. Theoretically, feminism should be a construct by men, for men. It’s very nice to get confirmation. To the extent men are evil, exploitive oppressors, feminism can’t succeed; it would simply be suppressed. Unless feminism was never a woman’s idea at all…and remind me which sex is the ambitious one?

    It was inevitable, though, because philosophically men and women are morally equal; there is fundamentally* no crime a man can commit or be victim of that a woman can’t. Legal codes that don’t reflect this (such as current ones) cannot survive the Athenian tradition.

    *(E.g. were it physically possible for a man could cuckold a woman, it would be wrong.)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: