Government needs to spend in the private sector’s stead, and perhaps the Federal Reserve needs to fund said spending with new money.

I think you've been spending too much time around Kuehn.

Daniel,

Do you expect me to take this seriously after your "libertarians qua libertarians" speech? Must I quote it back for you, only replacing the nouns?

It's not surprising that you would accuse me of violating the same generalities that I said don't apply in the previous comment. It's simply another example of your inability (or refusal) to comprehend what I'm saying. In regards to locavores, that is not a political position. It is a preference that has nothing to do with politics. My desire to wear blue shirts over red shirts has nothing to do with my belief that people should be free - for instance. They are not at all related.

This instance, in which we are talking about the use of government legislation to change social status, is very much a libertarian concern because, guess what? It involves direct government intervention. In that sense (because government is at the heart of this argument versus our locavore discussion where it's almost irrelevant), I can generalize about libertarian position this and liberal position that (especially when you fit the mold I set anyway). Do you see the difference? When government is important to a discussion, I can make generalizations about what certain political parties have to say whereas when government is not important to a discussion, it makes no sense to generalize (which is why I criticized you on your post). Glad that's cleared up.

Don't call me the naive one when all you can provide as evidence is vague pronouncements.

Disagree with me on the analysis. Go ahead. Tell me I've mischaracterized Affirmative Action or that liberals typically (yes, that is a generalization) endorse government policy to "reshuffle" or otherwise redesign social status. Is that incorrect? Is what I've said incorrect? If it is, prove it. But don't belittle my analysis because I don't provide enough evidence to appease your sensibilities. My statement regarding liberals and their position on affirmative action is reasonably accurate. So what? Your only objection is that it's a "vague pronouncement?" Big deal, Daniel. You're nitpicking.

Liberal support for the so called "Ground Zero Mosque" has been indistinguishable from libertarian support - and for a good reason: they both place primacy on underlying civil rights and liberties that are at stake in this situation.

I agree. I have absolutely no objection to the building of the "mosque." Where did you ever get the idea that I objected to people building places of worship (aside from your knowledge that I am an atheist)? I don't support it and I don't object to it. I don't care about it. I think it's RIDICULOUS that it's such a hot-button issue because it's absolutely a nonissue. Let them build it. What do I care? How is this a "garden variety conservative" stance?

Don't be so naive. The typical "progressive" or "liberal" position regarding such minorities is always to elevate them to a higher caste, socially speaking. Just because you might not support Affirmative Action doesn't vindicate the political party you associate with.

The libertarian position is equality before the law. The liberal position is often to correct wrongs done in the past, which necessarily means inequality before the law.

You also need to consider the outpouring of philosophical writings on the subject. Anarchy, as in the absence of institutionalized violence, did not come around as a political/philosophical movement largely until 19th century America. Time not only affords economic growth, but the flowering of ideas that are presently still very unheard of.

And what's the problem with this?

I would hold considerably less respect for other people if EVERYONE were as intellectually defunct as Paul Krugman.

Thankfully, they aren't.

I really don't know what to say at this point haha.

You must be wearing BLINDERS to not see this.

He drives us bonkers because otherwise intelligent people like yourself listen to him and give what he says authority because you think he has intellectual integrity. Jon got that exactly right.

The problem is, he doesn't. The man is intellectually bankrupt. Not only can he not differentiate between Austrians and "liquidationists" (which would include Hoover according to him), but he has the audacity to condemn an entire school of economic thought - not due to rigorous analysis and study - but because he himself didn't think of it. And if Krugman didn't think of it, it must obviously be wrong.

That's what we object to. We don't object to people disagreeing (insofar as we still debate and converse with you). We object to blatant and abject intellectual dishonesty and bankruptcy - especially when it's pointed at the Austrian school.

The question is:

If he is not knowledgeable enough on Austrian economics to judge whether it's "right" or "wrong," what other standard could he use to justifiably dismiss it? This is why Jonathan and I accuse Krugman of comparing it with his own worldview, and dismissing it because it clashes. Not because he knows something we don't.

But he is!! How else could he make the claim that it's wrong if he's not knowledgeable enough on it?

Daniel,

The difference with the Austrian school is not its incongruence, but its perceived inadequacy.

Oh stop trying to defend this guy.

It's obvious that he hasn't made any serious attempt to debate Austrian ideas. He wrote one article riddled with nonsense 10 years ago, and has shied away from it since. Now, you're claiming that he's knowledgeable enough on the subject to dismiss it because it's inadequate??? It is at all possible that he's dismissing it because it fits the strawman of "liquidationism" that he so opposes?

I don't dare accuse you of dismissing Austrian theories because of your political leanings, or your economic philosophies. I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that you actually STUDIED what you are dismissing, or at the very least have some passing familiarity with it. Can we really say the same thing about Paul Krugman, who is about as ignorant on Austrian economics as he is with neurosurgery?