Comments on: Fiat Shuffle: Bailout Edition

By: rj45 stecker

rj45 stecker — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 06:18:48 +0000

According to me advocating a minimal state would seem to ignore the very nature and history of the state mechanism. In what world would abolishing the Department of Education, eliminating the income tax, restoring the gold standard, etc.

By: Max

Max — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 14:32:49 +0000

News flash. McCardle has no economic degree and doesn’t know what she’s talking about.

By: Brian Moore

Brian Moore — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 20:05:51 +0000

I found this line from the article you link the update head-smackingly painful:

“So I put the question to you, readers: Would a second Great Depression have been worth it if it resulted in real health care reform and the redistribution of wealth, somewhere down the line?”

Wow. Certainly I don’t like those 2 things either, but if there’s anyone out there who thinks that’s even remotely a fair trade, even for the most optimistic results for healthcare reform/redistribution, they need to do a little more Depression-era research.

By: Julian Sanchez

Julian Sanchez — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 19:17:00 +0000

Well, I think Big L libertarians really are imagining some kind of big structural and cultural transformation that would make it stable. Though plenty are just pessimistic—they think the scenario they believe would be optimal is, for many of the same reasons, basically impossible.

By: Zach

Zach — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 18:39:42 +0000

Hi Julian,
This is obviously less problematic for the merely libertarian-inclined but isn’t ideological, big L Libertarianism a sort of Fiat Shuffle? Advocating a minimal state would seem to ignore the very nature and history of the state mechanism. In what world would abolishing the Department of Education, eliminating the income tax, restoring the gold standard, etc. occur and then remain steadfastly in place?

By: It Was One Year Ago Today, Milton Friedman Taught The Band To Play « Around The Sphere

Wed, 26 Aug 2009 17:27:58 +0000

[...] Julian Sanchez: I’m not inclined to debate economic policy with Tyler and Megan, so I won’t presume to take a [...]

By: Ex-debater, but high-school LD.

Ex-debater, but high-school LD. — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 01:24:18 +0000

It’s like a reverse anthropic principle. Probabilities make the discussion much more complicated, so set them aside for the moment. Known fact F makes event E impossible, but if the impossible E actually happened, and the universe remained otherwise identical (including F!), then a lot of other things would have to change to accommodate E’s having happened. That’s crazy! Not least because F and ~E bear a relationship of material implication. Assuming E generates a contradiction by modus tollens, which allows you to argue for literally anything, including things that hypothetically flow from F in the impossible universe. (”We accept our opponents’ fiat. But we offer the counterplan of giving everyone infinite wealth, profound wisdom, and supermodel hotness. Also, invisible, odorless pink unicorns!”) This isn’t really like a reverse anthropic principle — although it is kind of like saying, “if electrons had a greater charge, and the universe remained otherwise the same, we could totally generate more electricity!” — because the natural laws governing social institutions are inevitably psychological, and therefore trade in probabilities. But it’s logically similar, and in dire need of a better name than “fiat shuffle.” (Apologies to colleagues from the other side(s) of the debate world, but using “fiat” as you do is, and always was, silly.)