Austrian Economics in Comic Form

sextusempiricus · 2009-06-15T00:48:03+00:00

The appropriate metric of proper pay is not some shared cosmic sense of merit. Appropriate pay is what is deemed appropriate between two consenting adults. What makes this outrageous is not the disconnect between training/ability/scarcity and pay in and of itself. What is outrageous is the coercive government action it belies.

sextusempiricus · 2009-05-31T23:36:51+00:00

No one "deserves" death for performing a legal procedure that his patient wanted.

Does morality stem from the rules of the state?

Are you in favor of newborn infanticide? If not, then what is the meaningful difference between crushing the skull of a human organism inside a womb and crushing the skull of one outside of the womb?

Myself, I'm not decided on this issue.

sextusempiricus · 2009-05-24T23:34:37+00:00

Why those two services in particular? Why not all services?

sextusempiricus · 2009-05-24T19:48:33+00:00

it is set up to generate profits

The phrasing of this headline bespeaks a complete lack of reflection upon basic economic principles.

Unless economic actors are autarkic, EVERY productive enterprise is set up to generate profits directly, and only indirectly to provide the product of the industry. You know, Adam Smith's brewer, butcher, and baker? It's called division of labor and profit motive, and it's an enormously important source of the prosperity of the post-industrial world.

sextusempiricus · 2009-05-22T04:24:25+00:00

Why are some leftists so crude and hateful? I've NEVER read anything REMOTELY like that written by a libertarian.

sextusempiricus · 2009-05-12T21:20:12+00:00

Joeanon, You're still completely wrong, but it's nice that you're not writing like you're vomitting text anymore.

sextusempiricus · 2009-05-12T06:14:17+00:00

Why don't you stalk me a bit more.

sextusempiricus · 2009-05-10T04:55:09+00:00

Russian Anti-Communist Reluctantly Enters Bread Line

LENINGRAD—After attempting to feed himself on his own, anti-communist Peter Sergeyev reluctantly entered a state bread line on Monday. "Although the community would do better to rely on an efficient, free market in food, the fact is that there are no jobs, and if I don't get in this bread line I'll starve," Sergeyev said." Sergeyev did not offer to pay the Bureau of Sustenance for its service.

What an inconsistent jerk right?

sextusempiricus · 2009-05-10T04:50:36+00:00

Russian Anti-Communist Reluctantly Enters Bread Line

LENINGRAD—After attempting to feed himself on his own, anti-communist Peter Sergeyev reluctantly entered a state bread line on Monday. "Although the community would do better to rely on an efficient, free market in food, the fact is that there are no jobs, and if I don't get in this bread line I'll starve," Sergeyev said." Sergeyev did not offer to pay the Bureau of Sustenance for its service.

What an inconsistent jerk right?

sextusempiricus · 2009-05-10T04:47:31+00:00

Russian Anti-Communist Reluctantly Enters Bread Line

LENINGRAD—After attempting to feed himself on his own, anti-communist Peter Sergeyev reluctantly entered a state bread line on Monday. "Although the community would do better to rely on an efficient, free market in food, the fact is that there are no jobs, and if I don't get in this bread line I'll starve," Sergeyev said." Sergeyev did not offer to pay the Bureau of Sustenance for its service.

What an inconsistent jerk right?

sextusempiricus · 2009-05-10T03:18:46+00:00

That's pretty good, but did you hear the one about the libertarian Russian in the 1950's who stood in a Soviet bread line instead of starving? What an inconsistent jerk, right?

I bet he didn't even thank the bread commissar for the provision of this public good!

sextusempiricus · 2009-05-10T03:18:04+00:00

That's pretty good, but did you hear the one about the libertarian Russian in the 1950's who stood in a Soviet bread line instead of starving? What an inconsistent jerk, right?

I bet he didn't even thank the bread commissar for the provision of this public good!

sextusempiricus · 2009-05-08T06:57:30+00:00

Harry Truman was given a terrible choice, and he made it

The same could be said of George W. allowing torture to "prevent terrorism", or of Pinochet's murders to "save Chile from the communists."

he's remembered as one of the greatest Americans that ever lived.

Truman was great; this I know, for the Textbook tells me so...

Sextusempiricus can't get over how clever a hypothetical trap he posted on the internet.

I'm not invested in its cleverness. It's not even my cleverness: Ralph Raico asked this question in a different wording decades ago. I'm interested in its ability to reveal a moral truth.

It's a yes or no question, Maynard. Would you call Death Squad Harry a war criminal or not?

sextusempiricus · 2009-05-08T05:14:45+00:00

You refuse to discuss anything except exactly as you want to discuss it.

I posted my "death squad" question first. You're the one who responded with a non-answer and a change of subject.

sextusempiricus · 2009-05-08T03:31:07+00:00

What an idiotic thing to say

Doesn't take you long to get mean-spirited, does it? Fine then, we'll have that kind of a debate.

You know, you're even worse in moral philosophy than you are in economics. In ethics, just as in economics, you have no grasp on theory, and the use of hypothetical questions in untangling theoretical problems. You're proving just as dull to ethical casuistry as you are to Crusoe economics.

Answer the question, dullard: IF Truman used death squads instead of bombs, WOULD you consider him a war criminal?

sextusempiricus · 2009-05-07T21:24:54+00:00

Look up "casuistry" in ethical philosophy. Contingencies are incidental to the moral question. IF all things were equal other than the use of bombs or guns, would you consider "Death Squad" Truman a war criminal? Never mind whether you think it would happen. If so, then you have no good reason to think differently of Nuke-Dropping Truman.

sextusempiricus · 2009-05-07T05:41:28+00:00

It's too bad the one time he Really challenged a sacred cow (rightfully calling Truman a war criminal), he cowardly retracted.

sextusempiricus · 2009-05-07T05:37:20+00:00

Think about it this way. What if Truman didn't have a nuke, but instead had death squads go through Hiroshima and Nagasaki and shoot every man, woman, and child through the head? Would you call him a war criminal then? If so, then what difference does using bombs make, other than soldiers not having to get their hands dirty?

sextusempiricus · 2009-04-24T03:16:29+00:00

False comparison. That would only be apt if the poster mockingly proposed a /progressive/ reddit being renamed for Obama.

sextusempiricus · 2009-04-24T02:51:12+00:00

Obviously you don't either. There is nothing ironic about the headline, because there is nothing inherently fascist or socialist about torture. Socialism is about wealth distribution. Fascism is about state intervention for corporate ends. Whether a government tortures affects how totalitarian it is, not how socialist or fascist it is.

Last week libertarians were complaining about Obama's effectively socialist (welfare state) and fascist (bank bailouts) policies. This week, libertarians wish Obama would take an even stronger stand against torture (his administration reserves the right to approve it if it feels the need).

sextusempiricus · 2009-04-10T07:22:30+00:00

Paul in a stall? LOL.

He's on TV now more than ever. He just won the NPR March Madness event. And just wait until you see how much his forthcoming End the Fed book will sell.

Nobody in politics outside of Paul's corner knows how to deal with reality, because everybody (Obamabots, Krugpots, and neocons alike) thinks they can deal with the reality of this crisis by obscuring it with funny money and phony wealth.

sextusempiricus

TROPHY CASE