Libertarian denial; clever but not wise

Nick Kristof on politics: why we conclude that I'm right, and you're evil

TT's Samurai Stumblings — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 02:11:19 GMT

Here's a very interesting piece by Kristof at the New York Times about the reactions of Obama and

Nick Kristof on politics: why we conclude that I'm right, and you're evil

TT's Samurai Stumblings — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 13:05:52 GMT

Here's a very interesting piece by Kristof at the New York Times about the reactions of Obama and

Sophomoric optimism? - TheTokyoTominator

Sophomoric optimism? - TheTokyoTominator — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 08:35:53 GMT

Pingback from Sophomoric optimism? - TheTokyoTominator

rent » Blog Archive » Libertarian reticence to save the world

rent » Blog Archive » Libertarian reticence to save the world — Mon, 22 Oct 2007 07:11:10 GMT

Pingback from rent » Blog Archive » Libertarian reticence to save the world

re: Libertarian denial; clever but not wise

TokyoTom — Mon, 22 Oct 2007 04:00:29 GMT

Juan, who's saying you should listen to me? I've made arguments above about what I see are problems - feel free to argue them directly.

You can think and engage in discussion, or you can prove my point for me. The reflexive prickliness is an inherited tribal cognitive mechanism that gets in the way of thinking clearly. Have you noticed this? There are still an awful lot of Bush supporters who think the the Iraq invasion and subsequent war conduct were all the morally right thing to do - and they typically think those who disagree with them are insane or liberals or both.

re: Libertarian denial; clever but not wise

Juan — Sun, 21 Oct 2007 18:42:35 GMT

we should we listen to your 'arguments' ?

I meant :

Why should we listen to your 'arguments' ?

re: Libertarian denial; clever but not wise

Juan — Sun, 21 Oct 2007 18:41:41 GMT

It's allright Tokyo. Your claim that 'libertarians' deny I don't know what , sounds offensive to me. And the claim that man is clever, but not wise, sounds also offensive.

And let me ask, If man is not wise, we should we listen to your 'arguments' ?

re: Libertarian denial; clever but not wise

TokyoTom — Sat, 20 Oct 2007 15:21:57 GMT

Juan, your presumptive strawman is offensive, so you hardly invite me to bother with you further.

No, I don`t advocate world government.

I`ve already given you a thread that spells out more of what I think. You can take a look, or wait until I post more here. Your choice.

re: Libertarian denial; clever but not wise

Juan — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 16:51:34 GMT

So, you're not advocating the privatization of the sea, but rather that world-government control it ? Same thing for the atmosphere ?

re: Libertarian denial; clever but not wise

TokyoTom — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 04:37:35 GMT

I believe that government is not needed for domestic pollution problems, but for climate change and the oceans, which involve resources nobody owns, there is an imprtant role for government.

re: Libertarian denial; clever but not wise

Juan — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 18:18:47 GMT

I'm more or less familiar with your position, I think ?

You believe that 'science' has declared that GW is a fact - is real - is objective - etc ?

You say that property rights are needed to address the problem ?

re: Libertarian denial; clever but not wise

TokyoTom — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 12:27:48 GMT

Juan, thanks for your visit.

I am certainly in favor of radical envrionmental deregulation domestically, but believe a more nuanced position is required for problems that are outside or extend beyond our borders. In any case, I don't expect our government will voluntarily disappear, so I am in favor of incremental changes that shift towards a greater reliance on property rights, markets and voluntary cooperation.

I hope you will browse through my other posts to get a better picture of what I think. In addition, you might try this comment thread on the main Mises blog:

blog.mises.org/.../007152.asp

re: Libertarian denial

Juan — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 03:54:04 GMT

<i>I also realize that for certain cases our shared tool of government may serve productive or even essential purposes. </i>

So, you believe that government is needed to 'fix' the enviromental 'problems' ???

I always thought that to be a libertarian, one needed to understand that the only legitimate function of government is to protect individual rights.

Also, libertarians usually realize that monopolic government can't really protect individual rights because it is...a monopoly.

You on the other hand, don't realize this, and also believe that government is essential to deal with polution ?

re: Libertarian reticence to save the world

TokyoTom — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 06:21:03 GMT

Jon, thanks for the comments. A response is here: mises.com/.../sophmoric-optimism.aspx

re: Libertarian reticence to save the world

JonBostwick — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 01:02:29 GMT

"Man is clever but not wise ("homo sapiens" is a misnomer)"

True. But humanity is wise. Men create cultures, economies and law.

Man's flaw is that he is over confident of his own intelligence. He tries to control things he doesn't understand, like culture, economies, and law.

You have just made an excellent case for why government involvement will not improve the environment. Because governments, like man, are not wise.