[Population: One] <A HREF="http://popone.innocence.com/ar

[bryant]

All the hip liberals are dogpiling on libertarianism this month, and skillfully missing the point. Apparently the lure of libertarians potentially voting Democrat in the face of Bush’s overspending is too much for some.

The question is not “would it be OK to let everyone in the world own nukes right now?” That’s a very easy one. “No, it would be pretty much completely not be a good idea.” The question is “Would this be a better world, and if so, what do we need to do to get there?”

In the debate which is the primary target of mockery, Richard Epstein is taking precisely that approach. Randy Barnett and David Friedman are not, mind you, which goes a long way towards explaining why I don’t self-identify as a libertarian.

But it is important to remember that a hundred years ago, concepts such as welfare seemed hopelessly utopian. Things change.

Comments

[tayefeth.livejournal.com]

You and I both.

I read a little bit of the referenced debate.
"No person may use force or deception against other people, either for his own advantage or for the advantage of third persons."

Well, yes, but if that's the case, why are Libertarians so frequently in favor of eliminating ways for people to check, or even find out about, other people using force or deception to further their own interests?

There was also a remark about survival in an environment of scarcity, which made me chuckle. There's as much evidence that we evolved in an environment of abundance, as that we evolved in an environment of scarcity. Certainly our simian relatives aren't living in an environment dominated by chronic scarcity, except where we're destroying their environment.