While I'm going to continue posting at Skeptical Eye, I'll be posting my more provocative or esoteric stuff here--for the simple reason that I don't want to piss off all of SE's readers. Not because I care about the reactions I'll get, but because SE's a good guy and I don't want to sabotage his blog.
With this in mind, I wanted to respond to some of the comments made by Ginx at one of his blog posts.
He writes:
Mises.org for some reason is not allowing me to create an account, and this post was snidely mentioned in their forums:
(http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/8709.aspx)
This is correct. I did indeed mention his post in the forums, and did so snidely.
I'd like to point out that I'm well aware of the "zero-sum" myth. A system does not have to be zero-sum in order for inequalities to exist and persist.
The statement he made was, "Being rich is not a victimless crime, and some (often many) must to be without in order for some to have so much." Sorry, but that's a zero-sum-game statement if there ever was one.
Also, why post about it somewhere else and not comment here, where I can learn from your input or address your reaction? I thought Libertarians had testicles. I guess all that gun propoganda really was compensating for something.
Because I'm not interested. Your arguments are just the standard, predictable, unimpressive boilerplate that even left-wingers have mocked. You're a bit of a naif (or a total newb to libertarianism) if you think you wrote anything the slightest bit original or compelling. I'm not saying that as an insult; it's just obvious that you haven't engaged many libertarians.
Sure, I could come in and address your arguments. I just don't care. I don't even care if you find this post. C'est la vie.
I'm more fascinated with the "zero-sum" mindset, which--by itself--is worth discussing with other libertarians. Where does this bizarre mentality come from? How is it that one man's gain is another man's loss? Why do so many people have this view when it doesn't make any sense?
My Blog List
End human rights? Yes we can!
%20torture(1).jpg)
2 comments:
Possibly because of conflating resources (which are indeed limited) with wealth (which is not).
In addition, the state makes things zero-sum games that otherwise wouldn't be because it works through force.
That's my two cents on the matter anyway.
I was actually going to link to Ginx's post attacking libertarianism, but didn't get around to it, so I'm glad to see you've responded.
How is it that one man's gain is another man's loss? Why do so many people have this view when it doesn't make any sense?
I think modern American liberalism has a lot to due with instilling this mentality in the minds of the average Joe; "The rich get richer while the poor get poorer" "The rich need to pay their fair share" and the whole notion of government redistribution programs that foster the idea that there is just one big economic pie that has to be divided more equally.
By the way Cork, I hope your posts at Skeptical Eye don't become too tame :)
Also, just wanted to say your recent post Quick thoughts on Objectivism was really good!
I like good writing,(and, as an aside, I recently invited blogger Ryk to Skeptical Eye as well for an occasional guest post on political subjects which he doesn't do at his blog), and have enjoyed reading all your posts, both here and there.
Thanks again for all your contributions!
Post a Comment