Comments on: The Butcher with a Smile – More Mangling from Nancy MacLean Free Markets and Social Justice Fri, 17 Nov 2017 02:57:00 +0000 hourly 1 By: Render Them Unable: More on MacLean’s ‘Democracy in Chains’ – The Conservative Insider Thu, 27 Jul 2017 08:08:06 +0000 […] quote mentioning different systems in 1900 and 1960; Steve Horwitz at Bleeding Heart Libertarians exposed the fraud she’s perpetrating here, and also calls the book “a travesty of historical scholarship […]

By: George Selgin Sun, 09 Jul 2017 00:55:00 +0000 Rothbard was himself no slouch when it came to sloppy scholarship; and he was himself a hostile critic of Buchanan. His own “take” on what Buchanan meant can hardly be taken as definitive! What matters, at any rate, is what Buchanan himself said. otherwise you might just as well cite Maclean’s own opinion as “proof” that Buchanan really said what she claims!

By: Yet More On Nancy MacLean's Utter Carelessness with Facts and Disregard of Logic - Cafe Hayek Thu, 06 Jul 2017 12:42:38 +0000 […] And here is Steve Horwitz’s latest, successful whack at that pathetic piñata. […]

By: The Juvenile “Research” of “Historian” Nancy McLean – The Skeptical Libertarian Thu, 06 Jul 2017 00:10:30 +0000 […] the past couple weeks, Steve Horwitz (2) (3), Phil Magness (2), Russ Roberts, Don Boudreaux, Jason Brennan, Christopher Flemming, […]

By: Sean II Tue, 04 Jul 2017 12:38:00 +0000 “Your Very Own Phil Magness” sounds like something that might have been recorded late 80s or very early 90s, in the post-punk pre-grunge interval, by an alt-rock outfit built around The Replacements favorite session drummer. Lotta ready made libertarian rhymes here:

Under a stationary bandit that cannot not agress,
‘Your voice, our choice, somebody else’s largesse’
Why settle for more when we can strive for less,
With…our…very own…Phil…Magness [pinch harmonic]

By: King Goat Tue, 04 Jul 2017 12:11:00 +0000 1. Of course I think those who think homosexuality is a ‘nasty habit’ akin to alcoholism and smoking are wrong. Besides this, I think, say, grocers that decided not to sell to groceries to alcoholics or smokers would be jerks, especially if many other grocers did the same.

2. If it’s wrong for the government to use outright coercion to combat what might be seen as personal vices I don’t see how it denying privileges it makes available on the basis of perceived personal vices is permissible. As the recent church playground case in the U.S. Supreme Court concluded, denying a group a benefit or privilege is to disfavor them as surely as more directly coercive measures would be.

By: Dmitry A. Chernikov Tue, 04 Jul 2017 01:29:00 +0000 1. Not necessarily, no more than considering alcoholism, habitual lying, or cowardliness to be vices harms alcoholics, liars, and cowards.

It is just as permissible to argue that homosexuality is a nasty habit as that smoking is.

2. The things you have listed are not rights but privileges with the state.

For example, gay marriage consists in gay unions coming to be regulated by the same laws as straight marriage. But that this is a good thing is debatable.

Military service has the state as the employer, and as such, it is the state’s job to decide who does and who does not qualify as a soldier. A case can perhaps be made that gays do not qualify.

We do not have a free market in adoption, and the government has the task of determining which households are best for adopting the limited supply of children. (Even under free market, orphanages, etc. would have to discriminate for the sake of the children.) Again, it is not obvious that gay couples are competitive in this regard.

In any case, whatever you think of these issues, libertarianism proper has no authoritative opinion on them.

By: Ryan P. Long Mon, 03 Jul 2017 19:43:00 +0000 A good indicator of how wrong you are is your use of the phrase “your very own Phil Magness.” I don’t know much of anything about Phil Magness, other than the fact that I’ve read some comments of his on Facebook, and they seemed smart. But those were comments unrelated to this issue. I have no idea what his thoughts are here.

Which is not to say I agree or disagree with Magness, only that he isn’t “my very own.”

It seems you have no idea why I’m upset — nor even that I am upset. You’ve managed to lower my appraisal of your comments here. If your goal is to make emotional arguments that feel good as you type them, then I guess you’ve done well here. But if your goal is to persuade, you’ve come up a little short, I’m afraid.

By: stevenjohnson2 Mon, 03 Jul 2017 19:34:00 +0000 In this analogy, Horwitz is the dishonest advertiser and you’re the one who says I need to buy the car to argue with him. Your version doesn’t work because in your version I want to buy the car because I believe, yet you are upset because I’m NOT buying the car! Thinking like a libertarian is not a good thing.

You’re just upset because Horwitz made the claim that MacLean reading Buchanan as approving of 1900 was a doozy, but your very own Phil Magness showed it wasn’t, by citing Murray Rothbard’s specific approval of that point (despite hostility on other matters, which proves this reading wasn’t motivated by hostility.)

Don’t worry. You guys will keep on quoting each other. For your purposes all that matters is numbers of citations. One man’s scholarship is another man’s claque?

By: Ryan P. Long Mon, 03 Jul 2017 18:09:00 +0000 In this analogy, the car would be a book, the car company would be MacLean and her publishers, Horwitz would be the one arguing that the company’s claims are incorrect, and you’d be the person stating that Horwitz’s arguments are insufficient to convince you that you can’t get laid with the car.