Comments on: Almost nothing http://cafehayek.com/2009/11/almost-nothing.html where orders emerge Mon, 16 Jan 2012 02:06:33 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v= By: Anonymous http://cafehayek.com/2009/11/almost-nothing.html/comment-page-1#comment-190251 Anonymous Thu, 12 Nov 2009 16:25:00 +0000 http://cafehayek.com/?p=7220#comment-190251 Actually, I've repeatedly mentioned Bastiat and Hayek, which ought to be enough for those familiar with their work. One thing I have discovered arguing with Democrats and Republicans is that they like to talk about libertarianism without actually knowing much about it; this includes not having reading the seminal works which libertarians draw inspiration from. Can you imagine a libertarian being unfamiliar with the seminal texts of Democrats (e.g., Rawls) and Republicans (e.g., Buckley)? Or an atheist not having read the Bible or the Qu'ran? The latter is far less common. Actually, I’ve repeatedly mentioned Bastiat and Hayek, which ought to be enough for those familiar with their work.

One thing I have discovered arguing with Democrats and Republicans is that they like to talk about libertarianism without actually knowing much about it; this includes not having reading the seminal works which libertarians draw inspiration from.

Can you imagine a libertarian being unfamiliar with the seminal texts of Democrats (e.g., Rawls) and Republicans (e.g., Buckley)? Or an atheist not having read the Bible or the Qu’ran? The latter is far less common.

]]> By: Anonymous http://cafehayek.com/2009/11/almost-nothing.html/comment-page-1#comment-190249 Anonymous Thu, 12 Nov 2009 16:17:00 +0000 http://cafehayek.com/?p=7220#comment-190249 Clear to you perhaps. You haven't elaborated on your human nature point at all, which essentially reduces your argument to a guilt by association point. Clear to you perhaps. You haven’t elaborated on your human nature point at all, which essentially reduces your argument to a guilt by association point.

]]> By: Anonymous http://cafehayek.com/2009/11/almost-nothing.html/comment-page-1#comment-190248 Anonymous Thu, 12 Nov 2009 16:13:00 +0000 http://cafehayek.com/?p=7220#comment-190248 That clearly isn't my argument. As I have stated a few times already, Keynesianism fundamentally misunderstands human nature. That is its problem. That clearly isn’t my argument.

As I have stated a few times already, Keynesianism fundamentally misunderstands human nature. That is its problem.

]]> By: Anonymous http://cafehayek.com/2009/11/almost-nothing.html/comment-page-1#comment-190241 Anonymous Thu, 12 Nov 2009 15:50:00 +0000 http://cafehayek.com/?p=7220#comment-190241 But best to completely reject both libertarianism and Republicanism, just in case, right? If you seriously believe this "they did something bad while believing this so this cannot be believed" logic, then there won't be anything left to believe! But best to completely reject both libertarianism and Republicanism, just in case, right?

If you seriously believe this “they did something bad while believing this so this cannot be believed” logic, then there won’t be anything left to believe!

]]> By: Anonymous http://cafehayek.com/2009/11/almost-nothing.html/comment-page-1#comment-190240 Anonymous Thu, 12 Nov 2009 15:48:00 +0000 http://cafehayek.com/?p=7220#comment-190240 No, because Greenspan described himself as a "lifelong libertarian Republican." Which is an oxymoron IMHO. No, because Greenspan described himself as a “lifelong libertarian Republican.” Which is an oxymoron IMHO.

]]>