The Logical Absurdity of Libertarianism: Partial Omniscience

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Pragmatism as a philosophy.  Pragmatic towards what end?

If you want to achieve higher unemployment, there's a pragmatic way to do that.  If you want to achieve lower unemployment, there's a pragmatic way to do that.  How do you know whether you want higher unemployment or lower unemployment?  Pragmatism doesn't answer that.

Those claiming that they are just being pragmatic are covering for the fact that they have an ideology but do not want to use that word.  They're making the claim "ideologues are bad, therefore you should follow my ideology instead because I'm calling it pragmatism."

Also, there aren't any libertarians who believe congresscritters are anything close to omniscient.

[Xerographica]

Also, there aren't any libertarians who believe congresscritters are anything close to omniscient.

Take a look at this drawing...



Can you tell me who S is?

[Plu]

I'm guessing "S" is for "Strawman".

[Jason78]

You quoted yourself as a source for your first premise.

Uh, what?  I have no idea what you're talking about.  I linked to my blog entry which has numerous quotes from economists saying exactly the same thing.

How about quoting your primary source then?

[LikelyToBreak]

Sorry Xerographica, but the cartoon makes no sense to me.  

It says, "The Soviet economy is proof that, contrary to what many skeptics, had earlier believed, a socialist command economy can function and even thrive."  From what I remember, only the military industrial complex and party members thrived in the Soviet Union.  The rest of Soviet society spent much of their lives in queses trying to get the basics of life.  If this satire, it is poor satire, because it needs a long explanation to make any sense.  Just by needing to guess who "S" is, shows the problems with this "cartoon."

[Eugeny Anatolievich]

From what I remember, only the military industrial complex and party members thrived in the Soviet Union. The rest of Soviet society spent much of their lives in queses trying to get the basics of life.

I remember it too. I was born in the Soviet Union in 1973. I remember those long queues.

[Xerographica]

You quoted yourself as a source for your first premise.

Uh, what?  I have no idea what you're talking about.  I linked to my blog entry which has numerous quotes from economists saying exactly the same thing.

How about quoting your primary source then?

What?  If you click on these links...one, two and three...you'll see the sources.  Do you need me to copy and paste the sources/passages into a reply for you?

[Xerographica]

Sorry Xerographica, but the cartoon makes no sense to me.  

It says, "The Soviet economy is proof that, contrary to what many skeptics, had earlier believed, a socialist command economy can function and even thrive."  From what I remember, only the military industrial complex and party members thrived in the Soviet Union.  The rest of Soviet society spent much of their lives in queses trying to get the basics of life.  If this satire, it is poor satire, because it needs a long explanation to make any sense.  Just by needing to guess who "S" is, shows the problems with this "cartoon."

No, the fact that you don't knows who "S" is simply proves that you're ignorant.  The cartoon shouldn't need a long explanation...it shouldn't need any explanation.  The fact that it does proves the very point of the cartoon.

You'll keep tilting at windmills until you make the effort to learn about S.

[Plu]

I googled "S" but it didn't really help.

[Xerographica]

I googled "S" but it didn't really help.

You've got the heart of a champion

[LikelyToBreak]

Xerographica wrote:

No, the fact that you don't knows who "S" is simply proves that you're ignorant. The cartoon shouldn't need a long explanation...it shouldn't need any explanation. The fact that it does proves the very point of the cartoon.

You'll keep tilting at windmills until you make the effort to learn about S.

Yes, I am ignorant of Pragmatarian jargon.  So, is most of the rest of the world.  Which means my original assumption of the cartoon needing a long explanation is correct.

[Xerographica]

Xerographica wrote:

No, the fact that you don't knows who "S" is simply proves that you're ignorant. The cartoon shouldn't need a long explanation...it shouldn't need any explanation. The fact that it does proves the very point of the cartoon.

You'll keep tilting at windmills until you make the effort to learn about S.

Yes, I am ignorant of Pragmatarian jargon.  So, is most of the rest of the world.  Which means my original assumption of the cartoon needing a long explanation is correct.

It's not pragmatarian jargon...it's public finance jargon.  How can you possibly expect to fix the government when you have absolutely no clue what model our current system is based on?

[Xerographica]

Xerographica wrote:

No, the fact that you don't knows who "S" is simply proves that you're ignorant. The cartoon shouldn't need a long explanation...it shouldn't need any explanation. The fact that it does proves the very point of the cartoon.

You'll keep tilting at windmills until you make the effort to learn about S.

Yes, I am ignorant of Pragmatarian jargon.  So, is most of the rest of the world.  Which means my original assumption of the cartoon needing a long explanation is correct.

Look, I modified it so that the public finance jargon is painfully obvious.  Now can you tell me who S is?

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Nope.

[Jason Harvestdancer]

You post at Crooked Timber?  That name rings a bell for some reason...

Are you familiar with the names "Troll of Sorrow" and "Jodi Dean"?