Comments on Knowing Humans: Samuelson's Theory of Public Goods

Just as predicted -- yet another fundamentalist sp...

2008-11-08T08:31:25.976-08:00

Just as predicted -- yet another fundamentalist sputtering the "arrogance" charge, but who can't be bothered to copy and paste anything to substantiate it.

Fine, Brian. I'll just ignore your "ass-holiness" ...

2008-11-08T08:11:53.367-08:00

Fine, Brian. I'll just ignore your "ass-holiness" from now on. Goodbye.

I've already told you what the common pattern is b...

2008-11-08T07:32:20.118-08:00

I've already told you what the common pattern is behind such charges of "arrogance". They are always interspersed among boorish insults from frustrated people with brittle worldviews built on dogmatic allegiance to a simplistic axiom -- such as "the Bible is inerrant", or "9/11 must have been a U.S. government conspiracy", or "the existence of government is never justified". Once I saw the pattern, the change to my "act" is what you see here: highlight the pattern, and challenge them to substantiate their character assassination with even one shred of evidence. They always fail to do so, just as I knew you would, and just as the next such dogmatist will.

So this sort of thing has happened before, Brian? ...

2008-11-08T05:30:51.001-08:00

So this sort of thing has happened before, Brian? You might want to take that as a hint that there is some truth to it, and take steps to clean up your act.

"daniel" (or anybody who agrees with him), please ...

2008-11-07T16:55:30.860-08:00

"daniel" (or anybody who agrees with him), please quote me the most "arrogant" sentence you've noticed in any of my arguments, and demonstrate how I could make the same point in a way that you couldn't call "arrogant".

(I issue this challenge to every frustrated fundamentalist Christian and frustrated fundamentalist libertarian who levels this "arrogance" charge at me, but I never once have gotten an answer.)

No, Brian, you need to stop acting like such an ar...

2008-11-07T16:13:13.915-08:00

No, Brian, you need to stop acting like such an arrogant prick. Even if I agreed with you on this, which I don't, I would still find your argumentative style highly offensive. If you were making the same argument Thomas Knapp is making, I would be thinking "He's right, but why does he have to be such a dick about it?".

This "daniel" doth protest too much, methinks.

2008-11-07T14:59:24.253-08:00

This "daniel" doth protest too much, methinks.

Holtz, you are such an arrogant prick. You act as ...

2008-11-07T12:41:42.127-08:00

Holtz, you are such an arrogant prick. You act as if you think that people take you seriously. That's funny!

Dan, I write for an audience that, to the extent t...

2008-11-07T10:33:07.495-08:00

Dan, I write for an audience that, to the extent that it even exists, is assumed to understand what "anarcholibertarian professor" means, and to recognize that such a person is likely to disagree with mainstream economists. You are free to under-estimate this audience, but I won't be joining you.

Brian, you know what Block says. I know what Bloc...

2008-11-07T08:47:28.210-08:00

Brian, you know what Block says. I know what Block says. But someone reading your post may or may not know Block, and there is a very good chance that such a reader would conclude from what you wrote that Block agrees there is "overwhelming" "evidence for [the] under-production of public goods" as well as your other arguments. I'd suggest Block would disagree your declarative statement about overwhelming evidence as well as the arguments you (as well as so-called "mainstream" economists) draw from the false premise. So the issue is not the truth the declarative statement about the existence of the evidence or the arguments drawn from any such evidence, but the wanton citation to Block that implies he has a view opposite to his actual view. Candor would require a fair statement of Block's views.

Dan, it's sheer nonsense to say I'm suggesting tha...

2008-11-07T08:11:33.325-08:00

Dan, it's sheer nonsense to say I'm suggesting that Block -- a committed anarcholibertarian -- concedes the correctness of the public goods argument for the justification of the state. I'm obviously just saying he concedes that it has nearly universal assent in the economics literature. If you think the latter situation should lead Block to that conclusion, I can't stop you from connecting those dots, but don't get mad at me if that's what your brain naturally wants to do.

Holtz wantonly quotes Walter Block from footnote 1...

2008-11-07T07:21:58.921-08:00

Holtz wantonly quotes Walter Block from footnote 15, Chapter 9, "National Defense and the Theory of Externalities, Public Goods, and Clubs," from the volume titled THE MYTH OF NATIONAL DEFENSE (Ludwig Von Mises Institute, 2003, ISBN: 0-945466-37-4). The quoted footnote was associated with the following text:

"So we know there is something wrong with this argument from externalities—or, at least, that this argument somehow cannot be made to apply to groups of people such as nations. But there is no reason given for the inability to generalize this argument. On the contrary, for its adherents, [FN15] there are no limits to its applicability."

To characterize Walter Block as conceding the point Holtz endeavors to make is to ignore the context of the footnote. But don't take my word for it; I invite anyone reading this to actually read The Myth of National Defense [http://www.mises.org/etexts/defensemyth.pdf].

I'd suggest that rather than conceding "mainstream" economic texts are correct, Block reaches quite a different conclusion, a distinction carefully obscured by Holtz.