tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27488238.post6361611230870499180..comments2024-03-22T11:34:45.165+01:00Comments on taw's blog: Libertarianism is externality denialismtawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16972845140253292628noreply@blogger.comBlogger40125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27488238.post-77631986196138770722014-06-26T11:20:41.815+02:002014-06-26T11:20:41.815+02:00Just thought you and your angry shouty commenters ...Just thought you and your angry shouty commenters might like this from the Fank Davis Blog (26th June 2014): <br /><br />"But why does almost everybody believe that ‘smoking kills’? Particularly when their own lifetime experience of smoking has been that it hasn’t killed them. And hasn’t killed anybody else either. And is in fact completely harmless.<br /><br />I think there’s a wider problem here than just smoking. Because the same thing is happening with global warming. Why does half the population believe the human-produced carbon dioxide is causing dangerous global warming? Why do they believe this when their own personal experience should be telling them that the climate is much the same as it always has been?"<br /><br />Batty little chappy, ain't he?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27488238.post-49158703345608507612014-04-01T20:44:08.029+02:002014-04-01T20:44:08.029+02:00"Libertarians and traditional Conservatives (..."Libertarians and traditional Conservatives (Not counting Cameroid) are often the only groups to generally correctly identify externalities."<br /><br />Libertarians and traditional Conservatives identified financial assistance for the poor as the primary cause of the recession, rather than the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act which allowed banks to play with people's money and offer subprime loans knowing that the people taking those loans are not going to be as savvy.<br /><br />My girlfriend had to spend literally every waking moment studying for six months to pass a certification exam that stated she was prepared to sell home loans. Expecting consumers who aren't in the finance industry to do the same amount of legwork just to satisfy a baseline prerequisite of life is absurd.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27488238.post-23969102819202164602012-10-17T01:19:37.404+02:002012-10-17T01:19:37.404+02:00TAW has never been the smartest guy in the blogosp...TAW has never been the smartest guy in the blogosphere. But the responses here to his article are unwarranted. Did any of you actually read his article? Furthermore did you read your incoherent comments?<br /><br />Keep up your one-true-scotsman rhetoric guys.<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27488238.post-79574396566031532902009-12-16T10:25:59.089+01:002009-12-16T10:25:59.089+01:00That's 10-15 minutes of my life I'll never...That's 10-15 minutes of my life I'll never get back. I demand compensation!<br /><br />Being against politicians deciding where people can or can't smoke and being 'pro smoking' are two very, very, very different things. The fact that you can't separate them from each other tells me a lot about you. It basically tells me I shouldn't take you seriously, because you probably have no idea what motivates people to subscribe to some form of libertarianism in the first place.<br /><br />Also, "Libertarians are really uncomfortable with economics"??? <br /><br />That's a little bit like screaming "I don't have a clue what I'm talking about" from the roof-tops. After I'd read that sentence, I skimmed the rest of the piece and then looked down at the number of comments. I then realised that a lot of people must read your blog. Otherwise I can't quite figure out why any grown up libertarian with an IQ above 70 would even comment on this piece.UShttp://econstudentlog.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27488238.post-43870299723273356662009-12-13T06:03:06.073+01:002009-12-13T06:03:06.073+01:00Libertarians are really uncomfortable with economi...<i>Libertarians are really uncomfortable with economics - at least with anything resembling modern science - they sure have their own folk version of it. They pretend that red part of the diagram doesn't exist.</i><br /><br />Yeah, I know what you mean. Libertarianism talks about and values economics so much less than other political ideologies. And libertarians like Milton Friedman are really uncomfortable with economics.<br /><br />There are many good critiques of libertarianism to be made. But yours is not among them.Patri Friedmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00795471439484698201noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27488238.post-78151956392537287492009-12-12T12:27:56.870+01:002009-12-12T12:27:56.870+01:00"# I feel that governments are always and wit..."# I feel that governments are always and without exceptions evil<br /># If externalities existed, governments would actually be useful<br /># So I won't believe in existence of externalities"<br /><br />This is called: Reductio ad absurdum<br /><br />You're just not very bright are you?SorenKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03993582153774370238noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27488238.post-51092511004926235252009-12-12T05:11:39.399+01:002009-12-12T05:11:39.399+01:00Your article takes the fine, complex topic of econ...Your article takes the fine, complex topic of economic discourse and treats it with the bludgeon of gross generalization and several glaring logical fallacies. <br /><br />First, a random sampling of posts from libertarian (small "l") blogs does not logically equal Libertarianism. Your sample pool is far too small and concentrated to be considered representative.<br /><br />Second, equivocating Libertarianism with denial of negative externalities then introducing Pigouian analysis as the only alternative is deceptive and dishonest. It is a classic false dilemma, and textbook straw-man bait and switch. A cursory background in critical analysis would revel these flaws.<br /><br />Were this article truly intellectually honest, it would acknowledge the argument made by Mr. Caplan in the linked article. (...and made by Libertarian thinkers the world round) Libertarians do not deny externalities or transaction costs. In fact, they tend to hold their estimates of these factors higher then your average statist. Libertarians say that, given a choice between free markets and state fiat, markets will more often produce more efficient results in mitigating externalities and lowing transaction costs. The classic Public Choice argument says that government actors often (if not always) fail to recognize the true external repercussions and costs of their actions. Government action is often much worse than market failure.<br /><br />Your parting shot about libertarians supporting the super-rich is yet another example of inverting the truth to forward your skewed view of reality. Even a brief review of economic legislative history in the modern western world would reveal that most entrenched corporate business interests are NOT for the free market. More often than not, they use their considerable influence to gain a political edge in supposedly "public interest" legislation. Regulations which purportedly limit externalities end up serving the interests of those who they are supposed to limit. For an example, please read and understand the implications of any current carbon-trading legislation today.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27488238.post-20758168221801450312009-12-12T01:48:06.370+01:002009-12-12T01:48:06.370+01:00TAW.....
All this talk of externalities denial is...TAW.....<br /><br />All this talk of externalities denial is making me ill.<br /><br />Libertarians and traditional Conservatives (Not counting Cameroid) are often the only groups to generally correctly identify externalities. Liberals (or illiberals as we Libertarians currently perceive them to act) do not understand how to correctly evaluate externalities and the Lefties have no clue. To pick an example you seem to be harping on about, try smoking. It seems to me that massive tobacco taxes cover off more than all other cost related externalities associated with smoking. Also, when smokers die earlier, does this not relieve the health services of a significant portion of costs associated with an ageing population. Most health care costs are incurred by those over 70 years of age, with those costs increasing disproportionally for even older patient groups. Do smokers recoup their fair share of pension contributions - not really because they die younger.<br /><br />You may be a confirmed antismoker but does this have to preclude using your brain when thinking about the issue.<br /><br />Your views on diet seem strange insofar as many libertarians would agree with your stance, yet most left and liberal positions would view your comments as polically incorrect or "Inappropriate" to use incumbent "New-Speak" terminology.<br /><br />DonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27488238.post-13854748872629365432009-12-12T01:00:47.779+01:002009-12-12T01:00:47.779+01:00Nigel Winterbottom again...
TAW
I took a look at...Nigel Winterbottom again...<br /><br />TAW<br /><br />I took a look at the Frank Davis Blog. You have incorrectly identified Frank as a Libertarian. He admits to a Left wing political preference but feels angry and betrayed because his government have impinged severely upon his lifestyle choices.<br /><br />NigelAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27488238.post-81695783081172067002009-12-12T00:51:38.875+01:002009-12-12T00:51:38.875+01:00CONTINUED FROM PRIOR POSTING
A further series of ...CONTINUED FROM PRIOR POSTING<br /><br />A further series of studies in the Nineties, mainly in the US, claimed to have found that passive smoking was causing thousands of deaths a year. But however much the researchers tried to manipulate the evidence, none could come up with an increased risk of cancer that, by the strict rules of epidemiology, was "statistically significant".<br />In 1998 and 2003 came the results of by far the biggest studies of passive smoking ever carried out. One was conducted by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, part of the World Health Organisation. The other, run by Prof James Enstrom and Geoffrey Kabat for the American Cancer Society, was a mammoth 40-year-long study of 35,000 non-smokers living with smokers. In each case, when the sponsors saw the results they were horrified. The evidence inescapably showed that passive smoking posed no significant risk. This confirmed Sir Richard Doll's own comment in 2001: "The effects of other people's smoking in my presence is so small it doesn't worry me".<br />In each case, the sponsors tried to suppress the results, which were only with difficulty made public (the fact that Enstrom and Kabat, both non-smokers, could only get their results published with help from the tobacco industry was inevitably used to discredit them, even though all their research had been financed by the anti-tobacco cancer charity).<br />In the early years of this decade, the anti-smokers had become so carried away by the rightness of their cause that they no longer worried about finding disciplined evidence for their statistical claims. One notorious but widely-quoted study commissioned by 33 councils campaigning for a "smoke-free London" came up with the wonderfully precise claim that 617 Britons die each year from passive smoking in the workplace. No longer was there any pretence at serious debate. This was a propaganda war, in which statistics could be manufactured at will. (The European Commission's 2006 figure for annual deaths from passive smoking in the UK was around 12,000, some 20 times higher than the figure quoted by the British Government itself.)<br />By the time the Commons pushed through the smoking ban in February 2006, a kind of collective hysteria had taken over. MPs fell over themselves in boasting how many lives they were about to save. One Department of Health official was quoted as equating its significance to the Act setting up the National Health Service in 1948.<br />As clouds of self-righteousness billow out over England this weekend, the anti-smokers may be entitled to give us their view that smoking is a thoroughly noxious and nasty habit, even that it can exacerbate respiratory conditions such as asthma or bronchitis arising from other causes. They can even claim that the ban will save lives by persuading smokers to give up. But the one thing they cannot claim is any reliable evidence for their belief that passive smoking is responsible for killing people. Sir Richard Doll was right. It is merely a sanctimonious act of faith.<br /><br />TAW - Do not take any of the above on faith. Look for yourself as I did some years ago.<br /><br />Another topic discussed in your posting relates to Anthropogenic Global Warming. I am very definitely sceptical on this issue. Given the complexity of climate behaviour, I could not possibly be unequivocal on this topic. The world's best scientists will admit privately that too many global climate influences are not well understood (Like for example water vapour/cloud influences). To me, it beggars belief that prognostications are currently being made with such confidence when clearly this is not a sensible position to take.<br /><br />Please feel free to undertake an investigation into this one, it is almost a bottomless pit where opposing sides can spin you from one side to the other. However it is a bottomless pit into which we may be throwing trillions of taxpayer dollars for no good reason.<br /><br />If you are interested, I do not work for an Oil company.<br /><br />Nigel Winterbottom (Canada)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27488238.post-588018061180717962009-12-12T00:48:33.963+01:002009-12-12T00:48:33.963+01:00TAW
I am posting this in multiple parts owing to ...TAW<br /><br />I am posting this in multiple parts owing to a 4096 character limit on your blog.<br /><br />Your failure to properly investigate a given proposition betrays your lack of attention to detail. This is not a characteristic sought after in the field of Information technology.<br /><br />I have managed in Corporate IT departments for 25 years and currently operate my own software development business. I do not smoke, nor have I ever smoked. However, I do consider myself to fall within the Libertarian political spectrum.<br /><br />I often conduct detailed examinations within fields of interest that do not reflect my personal preferences but contain the characteristic aroma of fraudulent activity which directly impinges upon the lives of many others. This may be a fairly common characteristic easily identified in many other Libertarians.<br /><br />The purported health hazards associated with environmental tobacco smoke represents a case in point. Open your mind, remove your own personal prejudices and look more closely. Here is an opportunity for you to get a headstart :-<br /><br />American antismoking campaigners enlisted the aid of institutions such as the CDC and EPA who went to the trouble of committing gross statistical fraud to accomplish their ends. I will leave this for you to investigate the resultant EPA report which allowed ETS (Environmental Tobacco Smoke) to earn its classification as a class "A" carcinogen and became the "point document" upon which all early smoking bans were justified. You should follow this story through the Federal courts, paying particularly close attention to what is meant by statistical significance in the context of epidemiological studies.<br /><br />Other significant studies (and the only large substantive ones) are covered nicely in this article by Christopher Booker. Here is what Christopher had to say.<br /> <br />Anti-smoking activists can celebrate today one of the most remarkable lobbying campaigns in modern politics. The statutory no-smoking signs outside every "enclosed public space", including churches, synagogues, mosques and Buckingham Palace, will always remind us how they find the smell of other people's smoke offensive. One thing they cannot claim, though, is that protecting people from others' smoke will save thousands of lives.<br />The scientific evidence to support their belief that inhaling other people's smoke causes cancer simply does not exist. In the course of writing a book on "scares", I recently trawled through all the scientific literature on the health risks of tobacco, ever since Richard Doll's seminal paper in 1950 alerted the world to the link between smoking and lung cancer (when 82 per cent of British men were smokers). Over the next 30 years, the realisation that smokers risked serious damage to their health led to a 50 per cent drop in the habit. But this divided people into three groups: more or less addicted smokers, generally tolerant non-smokers and fiercely intolerant anti-smokers.<br />At the end of the Seventies, the anti-smokers first seriously turned their attention to what they called "passive smoking". Over the next decade, it is fascinating to follow how, try as they might, they could not come up with the evidence they wanted to prove that "environmental tobacco smoke" was directly harming non-smokers' health. They became greatly excited by a series of studies which purported to show a link between smoking and cot deaths. But these somehow managed to ignore the fact that, in the very years when cot deaths were rising by 500 per cent, the incidence of smoking had halved.<br /><br />SEE NEXT POST FOR THE REST OF THIS ARTICLEAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27488238.post-61604662689745664432009-12-12T00:38:41.782+01:002009-12-12T00:38:41.782+01:00"...my point is that libertarians from the to..."...my point is that libertarians from the top 20 list disagree that externalities even *exist* in the first place - denying AGW, second hand smoking risks etc."<br /><br />Would you care to qualify that statement?<br /><br />All, or some, of the top 20 list, TAW?John Demetriouhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08162148219333846404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27488238.post-33061350394920407112009-12-12T00:31:23.756+01:002009-12-12T00:31:23.756+01:00I was slightly disturbed when I saw this blog. Not...I was slightly disturbed when I saw this blog. Not because of the content (which I agree with), but because of the name.<br />The letters TAW are my initials. Freaked me out for a second. XDAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27488238.post-91879781675374484372009-12-11T23:56:25.235+01:002009-12-11T23:56:25.235+01:00Glen: I blame Google for returning this top 20 lis...Glen: I blame Google for returning this top 20 list so high in the results.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.pigouclub.com/members" rel="nofollow">Pigou Club</a> lists Tyler Cowen as member. I doubt many of the economists you mention would have kind words about big L libertarians.<br /><br />Arguing that Pigovian solutions might not deal with externalities too well due to public choice issues etc. (what Arnold Kling etc. does) is one thing, but my point is that libertarians from the top 20 list disagree that externalities even *exist* in the first place - denying AGW, second hand smoking risks etc.tawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16972845140253292628noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27488238.post-75024185114987531962009-12-11T23:49:33.526+01:002009-12-11T23:49:33.526+01:00Whatever conclusions you reached might be specific...Whatever conclusions you reached might be specific to <i>UK</i> libertarianism. I'm an American libertarian/anarchocapitalist and I'd only heard of one of your "top 20" blogs and had read exactly none of them. This list of <a href="http://www.libertarianleanings.com/2009/04/top-100-libertarian-blogs-and-websites.html" rel="nofollow">top 100 libertarian blogs/sites</a> is almost all familiar to me and appears to have no overlap with your list of 20.<br /><br />Meanwhile the blogs I do read include several you've mentioned. One can hardly accuse Arnold Kling or Tyler Cowen or David Friedman or Robin Hanson or even Megan McArdle of being economically illiterate or disbelieving in externalities. I tend to think of a libertarian as "a liberal who has learned some economics" (at least enough to reject price controls, at any rate), but mostly because that was my own path - by way of Milton Friedman and then David Friedman.<br /><br />I can't speak to the blogs you've looked at since I've not read them but my impression is that informed, economically-literate libertarians (in the American sense of the world) sometimes accept regulatory taxes as the lesser evil but at other times reject them due to a keen sensitivity to the negative externalities and the public goods problems that are <i>associated with</i> government provision of services.<br /><br />To wit: the traditional Econ 1 analysis of externalities tends to take for granted the existence of <i>bureaucrat-gods</i>. <b>If</b> you have available to you a government regulator who is perfectly omniscient, benevolent and omnipotent, that regulator might be trusted to correctly estimate the exactly-appropriate tax, to pass a law that charges and enforces that tax in an efficient and even-handed manner, and to remove or adjust the tax as appropriate as conditions change in the future such that the tax is no longer as necessary as it was.<br /><br />In the real world, we don't have any bureacrat-gods. Rather, if we give government the power to inflict a tax on a particular group we can be <i>absolutely certain</i> it will not <i>just</i> charge the economically efficient tax but will also take this as an opportunity to right various other perceived wrongs. The amount of the tax will be based on political negotiations that involve carving out exceptions and subsidies for favored consituencies and punishing or soliciting new contributions from disfavored ones. To get the legislation passed will involve various compromises that create their own new inefficiencies and at the end of the process you will have a bureaucracy devoted to collecting and distributing the tax which can never be gotten rid of even if it turns out we no longer need it.<br /><br />In short, public choice theory combined with a certain amount of cynicism brings one to doubt that telling legislators to go ahead and apply a tax in the amount of X to behavior Y is likely to on net result in the world becoming more efficient than it was before you told them to do that. It might do so if you naively assumed they would just do the exact thing you asked them to do and nothing more.Glenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14661650090485723755noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27488238.post-18508371190999153042009-12-11T22:27:22.578+01:002009-12-11T22:27:22.578+01:00The first thing I noticed while reading this is th...The first thing I noticed while reading this is that you absolutely do not understand what libertarianism is. I think you have it confused with anarchy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27488238.post-23762830859037913442009-12-11T20:19:20.684+01:002009-12-11T20:19:20.684+01:00you should read the more intellectual libertarian ...you should read the more intellectual libertarian blogs-reason, cato, jim manzi, etc. those guys tend to admit the existence of externalities. i mean, even mankiw is really a libertarian at heart.Jamiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04582956382228720887noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27488238.post-47772060024733993282009-12-11T20:04:17.213+01:002009-12-11T20:04:17.213+01:00I find this 'shilling for the rich' argume...I find this 'shilling for the rich' argument insulting and false. <br /><br />I have often written staunchly libertarian articles defending the poor and attacking the cult of the corporate state and irresponsible big business. I have also written pieces discussing the importance and superiority of charity as a means of protecting the interests of those who cannot afford things.<br /><br />My views are not inconsistent with libertarianism, but are rather a strand of the philosophy, based on historic thinking.<br /><br />I am no rich man's running dog. And neither am I a selfish libertine, as social conservatives would have some of us down as. For I am teetotal, I don't gamble (anymore) and I've never taken drugs. My diet consists of 1,500 calories a day, strictly, and I approve of good manners (something this blog appears to lack) and traditional family set ups.<br /><br />Any more stereotypes you'd like to dispense with, now we've got on this subject, TAW?John Demetriouhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08162148219333846404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27488238.post-68693121016814299052009-12-11T18:18:33.863+01:002009-12-11T18:18:33.863+01:00I don't think there was much wrong with your m...I don't think there was much wrong with your methodology, really. I read most of these blogs fairly regularly and suggest that while you do have a point here and there, on the whole your prior assumptions have directed your conclusions.<br /><br />For example, while it's quite true that there's some shilling for the rich going on, and a conspicuous lack of concern for the disadvantaged (unlike what you'll find in the ideas found in the intellectual heritage of libertarianism, from Adam Smith to Friedman), to suggest there's a denial of externalities in these blogs is bizarre. Externalities are one of the most commonly discussed aspects of economics among libertarians.<br /><br />Of course the smoking ban is a preoccupation for people who find individual freedom and private property important (pubs are private property). You're criticising libertarians for being libertarian here, which is silly.<br /><br />As for climate... I can't be bothered. Even George Monbiot thought the CRU leaks were noteworthy. If you don't, that's just your priors again.Peter Risdonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17792275403997179926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27488238.post-35324256886863952742009-12-11T17:09:18.266+01:002009-12-11T17:09:18.266+01:00This blog is reality denialism. Your conclusion is...This blog is reality denialism. Your conclusion is easily obviated by the existence of a substantial number of libertarians (and likely most) that admit the existence of externalities and have contributed to the discussion of various solutions. <br /><br />Clearly, your theory is false. I would suggest revising it.ModerateLibertariannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27488238.post-65193699807120530542009-12-11T16:53:34.183+01:002009-12-11T16:53:34.183+01:00What a brilliant piece. You managed to completely ...What a brilliant piece. You managed to completely destroy Austrian school economics within a paragraph. When are you going to do a piece rubbishing Ayn Rand and objectivism; I can't wait.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27488238.post-70432986139748295582009-12-11T16:49:56.779+01:002009-12-11T16:49:56.779+01:00I think it's great that you're attempting ...I think it's great that you're attempting to address the political concept of libertarianism, but you have many things wrong.<br /><br />May I suggest that you saunter on by www.mises.org/blog for a WEALTH of information on the economic school of thought that is the sister of libertarianism, the Austrian School of Economics.Christopher Petershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04350159847103274825noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27488238.post-31165097570458919642009-12-11T16:21:46.989+01:002009-12-11T16:21:46.989+01:00I'm still enjoying this series of postings taw...I'm still enjoying this series of postings taw; modern libertarianism is great because it works in neither theory nor practice.<br /><br />Perhaps even more interesting is that any critiques of it will be met with either the "that's not *true* libertarianism" or a very vocal defense of something unrelated to the topic at hand.<br /><br />Remember, libertarianism never fails, it's people that fail libertarianism.Keith Saderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09145968553823653526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27488238.post-41657270781101958712009-12-11T15:34:09.617+01:002009-12-11T15:34:09.617+01:00Just because libertarians don't believe that t...Just because libertarians don't believe that the best way to deal with externalities is government doesn't mean that they assume that they don't exist. They just believe that there are other, better ways to deal with them.<br /><br />Arbitration is often cited as the way to manage pollution. In the case of "smoking on a train," the answer is all too easy: Competing firms would run different trains with different policies (some smoking, some non) to meet consumer demand. Some might even have designated smoking and non smoking cars, which you could select before-hand when purchasing a ticket. You might even be able to rent smoking rooms, similar to the way you might rent a sleeper, if you want to smoke but not breath other smoke.<br /><br />It would be up to the individual to "defend" -- for lack of a better term -- themselves from the various negative effects of other people's actions, either by suing, or by choosing a different train car.<br /><br />Granted, it's not the end-all, be-all, as there are still some very complicated questions that need to be answered, such as, who sues for damage to the ozone layer? But the bottom line is, Libertarians have enough faith in humanity to believe that these problems that face us all can be solved without using force against unwilling individuals. You, apparently, do not.Grishnavnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27488238.post-37092949496397812442009-12-11T14:42:54.878+01:002009-12-11T14:42:54.878+01:00My lunch hour is due to finish shortly so I won...My lunch hour is due to finish shortly so I won't bother taking apart this ill-informed, graph-assisted diatribe. Instead, I shall only make a couple of brief points- your problem generally seems to be with people who are suspicious of what they're told by the Government and the, largely, populist-leftist press. What exactly is it about reasoned and moderate dissent and scepticism that has driven you to devoting a blog to this anti-classic-liberal codswallop? <br /><br />And as my fellow liberals have stated above- Libertarianism is not one thing, it's a loose consensus arranged around a belief in minimal-government. Thereafter it’s up to you as a person to decide your own stances on particular issues. Surely much better, and infinitely more interesting, than the absolute consensus that seems to grip the left?GrassyKnollingtonnoreply@blogger.com