Comments on: It must be difficult to go through life when one is so thick

By: Now here’s an ugly bit of business….

Now here’s an ugly bit of business…. — Sun, 31 Jan 2010 03:51:09 +0000

[...] Yglesias are attempting to be ironic. I am going to be very careful here, as I recently criticized two dunderheads for their failure to understand the use of irony by a [...]

By: Antonio

Antonio — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 05:15:23 +0000

I hate to pile on, but …. it’s too inviting. How could anyone be such a blockhead? The Dilorenzo mistake was precious, and symptomatic of the care with which he makes his arguments.

By: Charles N. Steele

Charles N. Steele — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 23:20:38 +0000

Excellent post.

But let’s be a bit charitable. Keep in mind that DiLorenzo is the poor confused fellow who called Russia’s invasion of Georgia a “civil war:”

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/022348.html

Keep in mind that Walter Block is the sadly addled anarchist who believes in the sanctity of national borders:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block101.html

It’s not to be expected that people so severely “intellectually challenged” would get Boaz’s point.

By: Josh Hanson

Josh Hanson — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 14:34:25 +0000

I’m a fan of Block and DiLorenzo, but on this rare occasion, I’d have to agree with Palmer. David’s point was very clear, and even upon my initial skimming of the article, I didn’t get the impression that he was actually endorsing big-government. Sure, I understand the need to take a principled stand on government excess, but to pick a fight over something like this is a bit disappointing.

In defense of Block and DiLorenzo, most Americans don’t read, and I could see how the title of the article could lead many to believe that libertarians support Clinton’s policies. If anything, the Auburn crowd does do a good job of trying to present libertarian ideas to the public, as opposed to those whose primary focus seems to be on other economists and academics.

By: Gene Callahan

Gene Callahan — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 13:25:35 +0000

RG, it seems to me to be so obvious that Boaz meant the little wars Clinton fought were better than the big wars we fight now that I couldn’t imagine why anyone would have to ask him.

By: RG

RG — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 04:12:48 +0000

It seems to me that Block would have no complaint if Boaz hadn’t suggested that bombing other countries isn’t so bad as long as you don’t put American troops in harm’s way. If that’s what Boaz meant, then it is as bad as Block suggests, because killing innocent people is the main thing (among many) that makes war bad in the first place.

Having said that, I don’t think Boaz thinks this because… why would he? He’s a libertarian. And unlike some people on both sides of this ongoing battle, I’m inclined to interpret my fellow libertarians charitably wherever possible.

If I were Block, and I were concerned about this, I would have asked Boaz for clarification rather than declare him to be “not a libertarian” based on a single sentence.

By: Micha Ghertner

Micha Ghertner — Sun, 17 Jan 2010 20:28:27 +0000

Hi Tom,

I really enjoyed this post and blogged about it at Distributed Republic (formerly Catallarchy). I also put it in context of Bryan Caplan’s foundational (to me, at least) essay, Purges and Schisms, and focused on some of the zero-sum marketing aspects of fighting over the libertarian “brand”.

http://distributedrepublic.net/archives/2010/01/16/tom-palmer-throws-down-the-gauntlet

By: Mathieu Bédard

Mathieu Bédard — Sun, 17 Jan 2010 19:42:50 +0000

I read David Boaz’s piece the day it went online and I didn’t see in it what Block saw in it. And now that I’m re-reading it, I don’t think I would read it the way he did even if I was totally unfamiliar with Boaz’s writing. But I still think Block misread this paper.

I wouldn’t be as apologetic to the other post you link to however… and I don’t understand this double standard of being unlibertarian and ‘beltway’ to discuss reasonable second best options regarding divided government, while it would be acceptable and libertarian to discuss extreme second best options regarding monarchies, or regarding a constructivist immigration control scheme (it’s probably further down the hierarchy in this case… 7345699^10th best?).

By: AnonLvMIattendee

AnonLvMIattendee — Sun, 17 Jan 2010 18:52:42 +0000

Now I know to read DiLorenzo’s books with a (big) grain of salt. I noticed during his lectures that he’s a pretty sloppy and inaccurate speaker, but somehow when it’s in print it looks more accurate. Thank you for the link to the review. I will remember it. And thank you for defending Mr. Boaz.

By: Sheldon Richman

Sheldon Richman — Sun, 17 Jan 2010 16:55:41 +0000

Nicely done, Tom! Right on the mark.

By: Sadi

Sadi — Sun, 17 Jan 2010 06:55:57 +0000

Your response is a nice example of rhetoric by itself. And I say that in a very positive way!

But really, it’s a shame you had to write that. How dumb can those guys be?

By: MNR-L

MNR-L — Sun, 17 Jan 2010 03:16:00 +0000

Hahaha! Good one. Despite differences, I’m a David Boaz fan. Glad to see this.

By: Drew

Drew — Sun, 17 Jan 2010 01:43:18 +0000

Good job, Dr. Palmer. But wouldn’t it be better to write that Block and DiLorenzo have all the subtlety of two bricks?