Apropos Jason’s recent pair of posts on libertarianism and thought experiments, I thought readers might be interested in this debate between George Smith and David Friedman on the role of ethical and economic arguments in defending libertarianism. Friedman takes the role that ethical arguments are less important than economic arguments, partly because people generally agree about what ends are desirable, and partly because the economic arguments are robust across a wide range of ends. Moreover, Friedman claims that when the economic arguments don’t work, the ethical arguments by themselves often aren’t strong enough to justify libertarian conclusions, and so we tweak those conclusions to fit the economics. Thus there ensues a lot of interesting discussion about “What if libertarianism didn’t work?” type questions.

Also, while I’ve got your attention, you should have a listen to this excellent podcast by Eric Mack, in which he discusses Friedrich Hayek’s Law, Legislation, and Liberty. Mack is always worth listening to. But Mack on Hayek? Fuhgeddaboudit.