tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8381613.post7258603923747723535..comments2023-04-03T19:10:54.088-04:00Comments on Critiques Of Libertarianism: Enough pissing match with Skeptico for me.Mike Hubenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01371469964446567690noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8381613.post-40291997397085316322008-10-09T04:37:00.000-04:002008-10-09T04:37:00.000-04:00The big mistake I made with Skeptico and his claqu...The big mistake I made with Skeptico and his claque was that I didn't point out how EVERY argument they made was defeasible. (defeatable) Even the "logical" arguments. Even the identification of informal fallacies of logic is logically fallacious as a way of disproving an argument: it only shows that an argument doesn't FORCE a particular conclusion, not that an argument is making an incorrect conclusion.<BR/><BR/>Libertarians are pre-adapted to the skeptical movement the same way they are pre-adapted to the tax protesters movement and many other fringe movements. They're ready to adopt ideologies contrary to popular sentiment. Often out of wishful thinking that they will gain some advantage or benefit.<BR/><BR/>The skeptical movement needs to continually face its own denialist tendencies. Folks like Skeptico, when faced with their own weak arguments, tend to lurch alarmingly into denialist territory and tactics.Mike Hubenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01371469964446567690noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8381613.post-24712365661735679892008-10-09T01:02:00.000-04:002008-10-09T01:02:00.000-04:00Great job on the arguments with Skeptico, Mike. Li...Great job on the arguments with Skeptico, Mike. Libertarian "skeptics" (ie, faux skeptics) are also a pet peeve of mine, but I don't have as much patience with them as you do. I'm a natural skeptic (and PhD scientist), but I've been dismayed by how libertarianism has infected the skeptical movement. Penn & Teller's show and Brian Dunning's Skeptoid podcast are the worst offenders. Keep up the good work. --LFPAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8381613.post-85954019994569295672008-09-02T13:27:00.000-04:002008-09-02T13:27:00.000-04:00but so does the framework of understanding which i...<I>but so does the framework of understanding which is necessary to judge it</I><BR/><BR/>Isn't this the bottom-line? That people who don't know of what they speak, but feel their "principles" give them all the answers, feel compelled to write/comment on things outside their ability to competently understand? <BR/>I think this one is a weakness of the at-least-above-average-intelligence group. <BR/>They think they can know EVERYTHING with just a few principles, and little or no work. Certainly both conservatism and libertarianism play on that (When I was in Washington, I was specifically taught to never trust "experts", in part because readers want to believe that libertarian principles can explain everything, and some people want to claim otherwise) but it's a tendency of a lot of people. And one which shouldn't be allowed to stand. It gets in the way of too many important things. <BR/>There ARE a lot of things in life you can NOT understand just with a handful of principles. And, yes, I'd count both politics and economics among them. You need a LOT of study, tons of real world data, and time to absorb and comprehend it. <BR/>Doesn't matter how smart you are, in order to understand a lot of subjects, it takes more work than reading an article or two, a book or two. <BR/>That's almost the entire purpose of universities...<BR/>That said, it's not like it matters. People will continue on and on about things they don't get.Mikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14211137141325996802noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8381613.post-81622349406240709842008-09-01T05:03:00.000-04:002008-09-01T05:03:00.000-04:00Indeed, the seed company can raise the price until...<I><B>Indeed, the seed company can raise the price until farmer B makes as little as farmer A, because B's alternative is to do the same as A and make as little. Now both farmers are worse off.</B></I><BR/><BR/>Nope. If the seed company manages to raise the price exactly enough to capture B's entire consumer surplus - that is, by $20k/year - then B nets the same as A: $50k/year. In which case the value of the land does <B>not</B> increase as potential land buyers are indifferent between earning $50k/year (while spending a lot on fertilizer and/or pesticides) and earning $50k/year (while spending a lot on seed). Also in that scenario there are no extra profits to draw in more farmers whose output would drive down the value of the crop. In short, given that premise neither A nor B are worse off for the existence of the GM crop.<BR/><BR/>For the rest of your argument to work B really does need to keep at least <B>some</B> of his consumer surplus. So let us stipulate: B has a surplus due to the new tech; part of his surplus gets captured by others (tractor salesmen, taxmen, bankers, seed salesmen); part of what remains after that gets competed away due to price competition with other farmers driving down the value of the crop. At the end of it all on net Farmer B is still somewhat better off than before.<BR/><BR/>But Farmer A might <I>not</I> now be better off unless he's willing to sell the farm. Assuming A owns his own farm, his property taxes will go up because of B's higher productivity. To the extent that the GM crop is a substitute for whatever he's growing he'll also be hurt by the price drop. His best bet is to sell the farm (at the new higher price!) to someone who'll probably use it to raise more GM crops.<BR/><BR/>This argument of course "proves too much" in that you could use it to decry the introduction of <I>any</I> new farming technology. It's not GM-specific. But it is a valid response to Skeptico's original question. One he might even be inclined to accept if you could somehow find a way to avoid calling him an idiot in the process.<BR/><BR/>BTW: it's "weasel". :-)Glenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14661650090485723755noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8381613.post-88700820533074824132008-09-01T00:23:00.000-04:002008-09-01T00:23:00.000-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Glenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14661650090485723755noreply@blogger.com