Michael Shermer, a science historian, recently wrote a lengthy post on how he became a libertarian. Among other influences were Mises, Hayek and Bastiat.
The substance of his post suggests that he is well-read and not just a bandwagon fan. Be sure to check out the hundreds of comments responding to his post.
Via DJC
{ 22 comments }
If anyone is interested rian Gladish reviewed Shermer’s book ‘Mind of the Market’ here on Mises.org.
It’s sad how many ignorant, stupid, pretentious, trying-to-sound-intelligent-yet-blithely-uninformed comments there are on it.
Reading the comments is rather depressing. The faith in collectivism runs deep and tends toward anger. Of course, I probably could have deduced that from looking at the present Federal government.
The Mises Institute has a long mountain to climb.
The extraordinary ignorance and foolish arrogance of the majority of posters in the comments section of the link originally provided is intellectually painful. It is almost incomprehensible as to why individuals still maintain their loyalty to the ideas of the long-debunked economics of Karl Marx.
I love how often they refer to carbon as a pollutant. They also have no idea what a monopoly is and seem to know nothing of UL. Exactly what I’d expect of leftists.
Also amusing is how “psychology and not praxeology” is what economics is based on. Huh? Have they even bothered grappling with Austrian arguments as opposed to stupid proclamations ex cathedra? It’s sad, how mindless they are.
I’ve been a Shermer fan ever since I stumbled on him last year. Not sure if I agree with him on all points, but he discusses his book “Mind of the Market” at Google here, and I love how he turns behavioral economics arguments around into advocacy of the free market. Again, not sure I agree with everything he’s saying, but I liked the talk.
“…the most muscular libertarian in history, Arnold Schwarzenegger…”
Uhhhh, what?
I find it interesting that everyone is so damn concerned about the environment, but never stop to wonder why.
Maybe, just maybe, it’s because the standard of living brought about by capitalism gave us all the time and resources to endulge in the wonders of nature.
I know I wouldn’t care one way or another if the killer whale was brought to extinction had I never seen one carry a human on it’s back and appear to get enjoyment out of entertaining crowds.
But no, they’re tortured slaves and Seaworld is evil. Nevermind the thousands of children who decided at 7 yrs old they loves whales the moment ice-cold saltwater drenched their parents.
And I’m sure people living down stream from the chemical plant that dumps unfiltered waste into a river would just sit back and die without the interference of government. If allowed to, people will take care of themselves. Every tree that fell on a public road during hurricane Ike in my parents’ neighborhood was cleared by neighbors w/ their own chainsaws, pick-up trucks and trailers. The police were too busy barring people from the people’s own private property on Galveston Island to notice.
reply to John:
I saw that too. I have no idea what he’s talking about.
@biotub
They also have no idea what a monopoly is and seem to know nothing of UL. Exactly what I’d expect of leftists.
Because rightists and conservatives are so much better? And people wonder why libertarians are called conservatives. . .
@Chris
I didn’t see any rightists(that word just doesn’t sound right for some reason)/conservatives there.
I would say that left/right is a completely false paradigm. Both favor government intervention and both are bad.
I find it disturbing that skepticism and atheism attract some of the most virulently biased people I’ve ever witnessed when it comes to social and economic issues. I saw that there were over 600 comments to the post and started reading hoping to find insightful discussion. But what did I find? It can probably be summed up as “lol. libertarians suck”.
Granted, there were some decent comments and discussions. But I’ll never understand how you can claim to a rational critic of nonsense and still resort to insults in lieu of arguments.
From the introduction of Communitas: Means of Livelihood and Ways of Life
By Percival Goodman, Paul Goodman, Paul Goldberger
“Political tags – such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth – are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.”
Robert Heinlein
While I admire Mr. Shermer’s courage in speaking out in favor of capitalism, I wish that he had chosen not to make this particular statement.
The essay is peppered with such nonsense as “Science now shows us that, in fact, in addition to being selfish, competitive, and greedy, we also harbor a great capacity for altruism, cooperation, and charity” and “my tenth book, The Mind of the Market, lays down a scientific foundation for capitalism through three new sciences: behavioral economics, neuroeconomics, and evolutionary economics.”
Mr. Shermer, as a skeptic, should be aware that one of the commonest formats for presenting crackpot science is the personal narrative. True skeptics understand that Mr. Shermer’s long description of his education, family, and professional life are irrelevant to the scientific and philosophical content which he is simultaneously presenting.
I prefer the targeted, sardonic style of his Scientific American column.
B. Ranson,
Even Shermer’s book makes such a weak case for the market that I believe it did more damage than good – unless his readership’s curiosity is piqued and they read von Mises and other Austrians with an open mind.
I see the real difficulty in epistemology, and Shermer had nothing to add there.
@John,
Arnold Schwarzenegger could be described as libertarian — in the minarchist mould — before he became California Governor.
If he hadn’t entered politics, he might’ve kept the radicalism he once had for the cause.
I’m sure its been observed here before but isn’t it ironic that these skeptics reject the idea that an omniscient and powerful creator is necessary for something as complex and wonderful as life…and yet they cling hungrily to a belief that a nearly omniscient and powerful government is necessary for something as complex and wonderful as an economy.
This strikes me as strange but it suggests two things:
1) Human nature has a deep need for this kind of authority and those who lose their religion are quick to transfer the same blind faith to some other cause or institution
2) Our natural allies may very well be on the left if they can see this hypocrisy and complete their development into people who can understand and appreciate order emerging from free complex systems
Quote from Libertas est Veritas: “I find it disturbing that skepticism and atheism attract some of the most virulently biased people I’ve ever witnessed when it comes to social and economic issues.”
It’s been my experience that many atheists have abandoned faith in metaphysical power only to adopt faith in statist power. Irrational faith in an earthly god is as much a religion as those more “conventional” religions.
It’s been my experience that many atheists have abandoned faith in metaphysical power only to adopt faith in statist power.
As an atheist, I have to concur that many atheists [normally ex-believers] are prone to replace a belief in a metaphysical being for a belief in the power of an earthly force. Shermer’s trust of science as the way to explain all things is understandable and in a way makes sense (which is why he trusts economics can be explained by the use of a “scientific” discipline such as psychology, instead of logic), but he misses the point of economics in that the science of economics really does not care why people value things, but how valuations lead to decisions. This is more important.
Comments on this entry are closed.