Tuesday, 28 March 2006

Um, I thought you guys were libertarians?

Go read the cover of this month’s issue of Reason and then report back to me on the most egregious problem with it. Besides my concern that Reason had finally surrendered to the neo-Malthusians, that is.


Any views expressed in these comments are solely those of their authors; they do not reflect the views of the authors of Signifying Nothing, unless attributed to one of us.
[Permalink] 1. Simon Spero wrote @ Tue, 28 Mar 2006, 5:17 pm CST:

I don’t want to spoil the suprise, but the answer is: no, and nothing.

Though the whole magazine has been going to hell in a handbasket since Virgina Postrel left the helm


Yes, but they broached the questions in the first place—back to the reeducation camp with Mr. Gillespie!


I’m not sure I understand the question. “Most egregious” suggests there are at least three egregious problems, from a libertarian perspective. From an a-libertarian perspective I spotted two egregious problems, namely the two prpositions presupposed by the question “What shoud Bush do about it?” Namely, it presupposed both that (1) we are running out of oil, and (2) Bush should do something about it. Only the second is egregious from a libertarian perspective, i.e., it would be factually challenged, but not at all unlibertarian, to state that we are indeed running out of oil, but Bush shouldn’t try to do anything about it.

Is there something else about the cover that I missed?


Well, I used “most” in the “two or more” sense. Although the idea that a dead man (or at least a man whose continued existence on this earth is solely supported by the fact that the CIA doesn’t think someone can do a good impression of his voice) can read blogs is I suppose also egregiously stupid in its own way.

Comments are now closed on this post.