Comments on: The Case for Colonialism: Don’t retract, rebut…. and censure those who seek to silence. Free Markets and Social Justice Thu, 16 Nov 2017 21:45:00 +0000 hourly 1 By: A. D. White Fri, 10 Nov 2017 01:16:00 +0000 There is an ongoing lesson being played out in Venezuela which might just counteract what young people learn in college. Might even get them to ask questions…

By: Joe Escamillo Sat, 28 Oct 2017 15:37:00 +0000 The human brain is unable — not unwilling but physically unable– to let in a fact that lowers its owner’s self esteem. So the more convincing the argument, the more strongly the brain of the esteem-owner will try to silence the argument’s bearer.
Conclusion 1: The only humans where reason works, are those whose self esteem is not threatened by Reason’s results.
Conclusion 2 (tentative): Those humans who resist listening to Reason, inadvertently make its conclusions more likely to be true.

By: Rob Gressis Wed, 18 Oct 2017 20:45:00 +0000 Yeah, that story came out after I submitted my comment. When I posted my comment, the full story hadn’t come out yet. (Note that the website the first link goes to has changed since I posted my comment.)

By: quinbusflestrin Wed, 18 Oct 2017 20:20:00 +0000 The journal web site says it was double-blind peer-reviewed. Follow the first link to the article and see for yourself.

By: A Modest Proposal: Make Academics Who Call for Papers to be Retracted Do Their Jobs! - Bleeding Heart Libertarians Fri, 13 Oct 2017 20:54:41 +0000 […] that “activists” might have different duties in these cases than academics.) As I noted earlier rather than attempting to silence persons you disagree with you should attempt to rebut their […]

By: On petitions to retract articles: I – opɯdʒɯlɯklɑr Sat, 07 Oct 2017 16:04:11 +0000 […] aside, I found this response from Bleeding Heart Libertarians speaks for me. As a group that identifies both as libertarian and as committed to social justice, I […]

By: Rob Gressis Mon, 02 Oct 2017 18:48:00 +0000 Well, it could be that we somehow cede them that authority (if you really want to get voluntaristic about it), or perhaps it is simply a function of having people deputized to do that sort of thing.

Here’s an analogy:

Imagine you are a soldier in a military. Your commanding officer orders you to do X. Now, there are two reasons to do X:

1. X will bring about much more harm than good.
2. Your commanding officer asked you to do X.

I’m of the opinion that if you’re in the military, 2 is the only reason that matters (barring cases where you commanding officer asks you to do something against military procedure).

Similarly, when it comes to helping a stranger in trouble, it could be that you’re permitted to help them (ceteris paribus) but not obligated to, on the grounds that it is not your role.

But I haven’t thought about this a whole hell of a lot.

By: Ron H. Mon, 02 Oct 2017 03:54:00 +0000

So, if you see a parent who is a stranger beating his daughter, you have
an obligation to call the police, but I think it would be
supererogatory to stop him yourself.

This is interesting. If you don’t believe you should intervene personally in defense of another person being beaten because you fear for your own safety and doubt your own ability to be effective in deterring the assailant, than I agree. Otherwise I have to wonder where the policeman, your agent, got the authority to intervene if you don’t believe you have that authority yourself?

Can those to whom we delegate authority somehow have more authority than we initially had to give them?

By: Richard_L_Kent Sat, 30 Sep 2017 15:33:00 +0000 The Story Goes that Einstein after having left Germany for the United States was confronted by a letter from his German colleagues that denounced the theory of relativity as a falsehood. It was signed by more than 200 German academics. When he was asked about it he shrugged and responded, well if there was any truth to the allegations all they would have needed was one signature.

By: rich poorman Sat, 30 Sep 2017 14:55:00 +0000 The US has colonies: Puerto Rico, US Virgin Islands, Pacific islands. They have a form of “home rule” but so did a lot of the European-owned colonies in the latter stages of those empires. The Caribbean territories are poor, poorly governed, corrupt and unable to manage their own affairs to First World standards. They have an unending supply of natural attractions, and a long list of excuses for crime, pollution, etc., etc., most of which revolve around white people. In my opinion, those islands who had and still have a strong connection to a European patron — particularly Dutch and British — are much better places than the US.