From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: Labelling laws.
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 11:06:48 GMT

In article <1gb04oINNcp8@armory.centerline.com> mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:
}In article <1992Dec11.042750.2493@genie.slhs.udel.edu> starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
}>In article <1g5ollINN95l@armory.centerline.com> mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:
}>}libertarians, like creationists,
}>}have nothing but old, discredited arguments made more than a hundred years
}>}ago by cranks and laughed at even then.
}>
}>Right.  6 libertarian Nobel economists in the past 18 years, but Huben, in
}>his omniscience, can wipe out their existence with the stroke of a key.
}
}Somehow I doubt that any of those six won their prizes for repeating
}Spooner's philosophical arguments which you are still repeating.

Everyone, read the Huben quote above: "libertarians... have nothing but old,
discredited arguments made more than a hundred years ago by cranks and
laughed at even then."

Mike, if you maintain that my citation of evidence which directly refutes
this absurd claim constitutes some sort of fallacy or argument from authority,
then you're either incompetent or dishonest.  Frankly, I'm losing patience
with you either way.

}Unless you can show that their prize-winning researches could not have
}occurred without their understanding of libertarianism, your argument is
}merely argument by authority.  As such it is no more valid than Linus
}Pauling's endorsement of vitamin C for preventing colds and Shockley's
}racist viewpoint.  I'll bet they haven't donated to the Nobel Prizewinners'
}sperm bank because they wouldn't be paid for their semen.  :-)

Why don't you ask those that remain alive?  Friedrich Hayek was the first,
Nobel, economics, 1974, business cycle theory; without his reading of von
Mises' "Socialism," and their subsequent collaboration on the theory of
business cycles for which he won the prize, it wouldn't have happened.  So,
even the tenuous claim that I prove that any of their prize-winning research
depend on their understanding of libertarianism is one that I can meet.

As for the others, I think it's more likely that their prize-winning research
was a major factor in leading them to conclude that libertarianism is the
correct political philosophy.  But then, you tell me: Stigler got one for
his work on regulatory theory (as I recall), Buchanan for his contributions
to the foundations of public choice theory, Coase for his concept of transac-
tion costs, Becker for his concept of human capital, Friedman for his work
in monetary theory...

And recall that this is constrained to those libertarians who've won
Nobels in economics; one out of all Nobel economists for the past 18 years
have been libertarians.  Shall we venture outside the field of Nobel
economists for pioneering and award-winning thinkers in other areas?  How
much evidence do you want me to refute your silly claim with before you
really look bad?

}You should be ashamed to use such a .signature after such a pathetic
}argument.  As a matter of fact, most of what you've written this week
}in response to me is similarly fallacious.

I merely note that while you have made two evaluatory claims like this
in the absence of any evidence, I've been citing evidence which refutes
your claims.  I leave it to you and our readers to judge which is truly
fallacious.

Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Voltaire
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian