Friday , October 19 2018

Potpourri

Summary:
==> How do you choose among your children? This is in the top 5 of my all-time favorite Contra Krugman episodes. ==> The latest Lara-Murphy Show discusses “Lessons from History” (chapter 6 of our new book with Nelson Nash). ==> REMEMBER CHICAGO PEOPLE: Carlos, David Stearns, and I will be presenting on Austrian economics and IBC this Saturday. Details here. ==> This was recorded a while ago, but in this podcast Carlos and I are guests, talking about Austrian economics and the economy. ==> At IER I talk about gas prices in Vancouver, and how Trudeau says things are unfolding exactly as the Emperor has foreseen. ==> I realize that sometimes Rothbardians react too harshly against the “DC libertarians,” but this recent Michael Cannon piece contained the following

Topics:
Robert Murphy considers the following as important:

This could be interesting, too:

Robert Murphy writes Potpourri

Robert Murphy writes Potpourri

Robert Murphy writes Potpourri

Robert Murphy writes Potpourri

==> How do you choose among your children? This is in the top 5 of my all-time favorite Contra Krugman episodes.

==> The latest Lara-Murphy Show discusses “Lessons from History” (chapter 6 of our new book with Nelson Nash).

==> REMEMBER CHICAGO PEOPLE: Carlos, David Stearns, and I will be presenting on Austrian economics and IBC this Saturday. Details here.

==> This was recorded a while ago, but in this podcast Carlos and I are guests, talking about Austrian economics and the economy.

==> At IER I talk about gas prices in Vancouver, and how Trudeau says things are unfolding exactly as the Emperor has foreseen.

==> I realize that sometimes Rothbardians react too harshly against the “DC libertarians,” but this recent Michael Cannon piece contained the following line that shocked me (HT2 Michael Accad):

As hostile as libertarians are to government, even we believe government can legitimately order the withdrawal of life support, and prohibit parents from moving a child to obtain further treatment, when that treatment would fruitlessly prolong a child’s suffering – i.e., when further treatment would be akin to torture. In such cases, the government intervenes to protect the child’s rights. (British law frames the decision in terms of the “best interests” of the child, but it seems to me that language clouds the issue and thereby unnecessarily inflames passions.)

There is no objectively right place to draw the line between cases in which the government should and should not intervene. But I don’t know anyone who thinks it never should. If anyone does make that argument, they’re just wrong.

(The italics is in the original; I added the bold.) So as an aside, in the next sentences Cannon admits: “There is plenty of room to argue about whether British law and courts drew the line in the right place here. It did not appear Alfie was suffering, but doctors could not completely rule it out.” So that’s a bit ominous in itself, that apparently the burden of proof is on parents to prove beyond all possible doubt that their child isn’t suffering, before the government might forfeit its ability to make them stop offering medical care.

Yet I want to go back to the part that I put in bold. Cannon is working for an institution that teaches the world about libertarianism, and he is saying he literally doesn’t know a single libertarian who thinks the government should never forcibly prevent parents from giving more medical care to their baby? I would be shocked if there weren’t a dozen interns at Cato who believe that. Has Accad never heard of David Friedman? I don’t even need to talk about all the Rothbardians running around.

I realize it might seem like I’m going nuts over a little thing, but this was the whole POINT of his post. It’s not like he was talking about his plan to use tax credits to unwind ObamaCare by Fiscal Year 2034, and he made an offhand remark about libertarian rights theory.

Robert Murphy
Christian, Austrian economist, and libertarian theorist. Research Prof at Texas Tech and author of *Choice*. Paul Krugman's worst nightmare.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *