Skip to content

Category: Social Justice

The Nobel Prize in Economics for 2018: To Irrational Statists Once Again

On the selection of statist economists William Nordhaus and Paul Romer for the 2018 Nobel Prize in economics:

Thomas DiLorenzo quotes the Nobel-winning economists:

“The Soviet economy is proof that, contrary to what many skeptics had earlier believed, a socialist command economy can function and even thrive.”

–Paul Samuelson and William Nordhaus, Economics, 13th edition, p. 837.

Samuelson was the first American recipient of the Nobel Prize in Economics (1970), awarded by the Swedish central bank and not the Nobel Foundation.  Nordhaus is this year’s recipient.  In the 1989 edition of their textbook they predicted that the Soviet economy would become larger than the U.S. economy somewhere around the year 2000.

And Robert Wenzel writes that “Both are technocrats for state tinkering with the economy,” and that “Nordhaus is an academic child of the current climate change craze.” And, “Paul Romer, a professor at NYU Stern School of Business, is off in the, far off, palm reading land of macro modeling, where government tinkering is always needed.”

And also Wenzel notes that Romer is against the idea of private police. (See Chapter 12 of For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto [.pdf] by Murray Rothbard on the privatization of police. For skeptics of private police, Rothbard begins: “In the first place, there is a common fallacy, held even by most advocates of laissez-faire, that the government must supply ‘police protection,’ as if police protection were a single, absolute entity, a fixed quantity of something which the government supplies to all. But in actual fact there is no absolute commodity called ‘police protection’ any more than there is an absolute single commodity called ‘food’ or ‘shelter’.”)

Wenzel quotes Nordhaus on climate change: “The science and economics of global warming are clear. Unless forceful measures are taken the planet will continue to warm.” Wenzel says it’s “Y2K fears on steroids.”

And that’s exactly right. Why doesn’t Nobel Prize winner Nordhaus understand that the planet is warming and will continue to warm no matter what humans do? It is not preventable, because the sun is getting hotter and hotter, in general, and by 1 billion years from now it will have completely dried up everything on Earth, and by 7 billion years it’s all over. Oh, well.

So, the Nobel Prize is given to people mainly on the Left, to people who are ignorant and irrational, and based on the emotional rhetoric involved with these people’s writings and activities. Another example is Barack Obama, who was given the Nobel Peace Prize, despite his increasing troop levels in Afghanistan by 30,000 his first month in office, increasing the CIA drone strikes that have been mostly murdering innocent civilians overseas, and more, throughout his time as President.

Loyola University Professor Walter Block Boycotted by Hysterical Snowflakes

Target Liberty informs us that Loyola University, New Orleans economics professor Walter Block is being boycotted by students, based on their erroneous view that he is “racist” and “sexist,” and based on his being smeared by the New York Times as “pro-slavery.” Walter Block is really anti-slavery, because he is against involuntary labor.

And Dr. Block responds to those hysterical students in this article, responding to their accusation of being “pro-slavery”:

What about slavery? My reputation in this regard is based on an interview with the New York Times. I was trying to explain libertarianism to them. I emphasized that voluntarism was crucially important to the NAP. Rape and ordinary sexual intercourse may look alike, but one is voluntary, the other is not. The same with a punch in the nose. It is legitimate in the boxing ring since both parties consented, but not otherwise. It is the same with slavery. If someone (an adult) assents to it, slavery is legitimate. Actual slavery, of course, was not voluntary, since the victim did not agree to any such thing. It was therefore evil and pernicious. Why might a person volunteer to become a slave? One possibility, extreme masochism (don’t knock this; our Jesuit tradition recommends toleration). Another, to save his child’s life. My son, God forbid, has an illness the cure of which would cost $5 million. I’m poor. If someone offers me that amount of money to become his slave, I’d willingly sell myself to him, since I value my son’s life more than my own freedom.

And in response to the students who want to boycott Walter Block and his classes at Loyola University, Robert Wenzel at the aforementioned Target Liberty writes:

The students boycotting Dr. Block will never do anything impressive on the intellectual front. They will be moved by the intellectual fads of the day. They will be anti-plastic straw today, and who knows, maybe pro-butt tattoos tomorrow. They are in an important way insignificant. The student that takes Dr, Block’s class to challenge him or learn from him is taking the first step toward deep thought, independent thought and maybe original thought. This will be the type of person that may make an intellectual contribution down the road.

Walter Block is considered by some to be a radical libertarian. He believes in the non-aggression principle. So, he’s not really radical. In my view, violence is radical. I’m sure that those who actually do have an open mind will check out some of Walter Block’s publications, which include these:

Defending the Undefendable

The Case for Discrimination

Building Blocks for Liberty

The Privatization of Roads and Highways

Elizabeth Warren’s Unwarranted Wage

Labor Relations, Unions and Collective Bargaining: A Political Economic Analysis

Is There a Human Right to Medical Insurance?

Defending the Undefendable II

Other Walter Block Publications

More recently, on the LewRockwell.com blog David Gordon of the Mises Institute congratulates Walter Block on his 100th peer-reviewed journal article he has co-authored with students (not including all the ones he has done alone or with other authors). And Tom Woods does a podcast with Dr. Block on his recent milestone, and lists those 100 papers.

The Modern Irrational “Women’s Rights” Movement That Has Nothing to Do with Women’s Rights

And everything to do with seizing control over the lives of others, and silencing and tormenting innocent people.

Paul Craig Roberts has a column about the modern irrational feminist movement, that goes against common sense and decency. The grammatically correct use of the word “rape” has caused a football coach to be disciplined, while a female college professor wants all males to be tortured and killed but her “freedom of speech” is protected by her university’s diversity commissars. And Roberts gets into the phenomenon of false accusation in Amerika now, and refers to the Brett Kavanaugh hearings.

I have written quite a bit about all this irrationality and injustice being inflicted by “social justice (sic) warriors” against innocent white people, males and white males. It is especially the hysterical feminazis that are very worrisome. So Roberts’s column reminded me of some of my own past pieces on these subjects.

For instance, in ‘Libertarianism and Privilege,’ Harvard Hypocrites, and the Supreme Court, I wrote:

And just how valid is this “male privilege” stuff now anyway, given the anti-male discrimination, oppression and feminization of America, especially in the schools?

The female-dominated government schools have been banning dodge ball, omitting recess play time, and suspending or arresting little boys who draw pictures of a gun, as well as putting the kids on psychiatric drugs to repress their independence. By college the helicopter moms call their boys every night and argue with the professors over the boys’ grades.

And then there’s the college dorm and classroom “Two Minutes Hate” against males (and white people), the initiation ritual called “Tunnel of Oppression.” Here, the white students are indoctrinated to believe how privileged they are and what “racists” they are because they are white. And the male students are told about the “rape culture,” in which they inherently have the guilt of a rapist, simply because they are male.

Yes, this is the mentality today in what is considered “academics.” The more serious offenses perpetrated by these asinine academic activists include attempts to expel or convict young men of “rape” that actually isn’t rape according to the traditional legal definition, and in fact when, as libertarian feminists have noted, there is no such thing as a “rape culture” in the first place.

And in On the Neurotically Fragile Always-Offended Nudniks, I wrote:

On college campuses, conservative speakers are either shouted down or just banned from campus entirely. That’s nothing new, of course. But more recently, some college campuses are issuing letters urging “civility.” To them, unfortunately, being “civil” means being politically correct. Frankly, the new “civility” really is the stifling of diversity and free expression.

Some colleges are banning the utterances of certain words or phrases, such as the word “freshman” at Elon University. As the College Fix notes, the reason Elon is replacing the word “freshman” with “first year” is because, according to the university’s director of “Inclusive Community Well-Being,” the word “freshman” may imply a hierarchy and may refer to some students as younger and less experienced, and could cause the younger students to be targeted for sexual violence. (I am Not. Making. This. Up.)

So “freshman” implies the younger students, but that word’s replacement, “first year,” does not?

Apparently, if someone uses the word “rape” in such a nonchalant or insensitive manner, such an utterance trivializes that act of sexual violence, and for those who happened to have been victims they feel re-traumatized when hearing certain words and phrases. Such language “triggers” terrible, painful emotions and fear. This has been happening to non-victims as well. But many people are just neurotically over-sensitive now, in my view.

Just what is it with the thin-skinned people now that their merely hearing someone happening to say certain words or phrases — not directed at them, mind you, just happening to be spoken — causes someone to be re-traumatized? If that’s the case, then it is they who may need some further counseling to resolve some issues that they may have, rather than censoring, silencing and stifling someone else’s mere verbal expression, regardless how silly, immature or rude such an expression might be.

I’m sorry if I sound extremely insensitive here, but, seriously, we really have to pussyfoot around and censor ourselves verbally these days, just to protect the overly-sensitive feelings of someone whose fragile being may be harmed emotionally in some way.

In fact, that situation has become so absurd that a male college student, who happened to resemble a rape victim’s assailant, was actually banned from campus and prevented from getting to his classes, and so on. Need I add any further comment to that? (I think not.)

But I wonder how many people who have not been the victims of sexual assault are nevertheless joining in and saying that they, too, feel traumatized by others’ utterances of certain words or phrases? Or are the younger generations now being so indoctrinated to believe that they feel traumatized because that’s the “correct” or socially acceptable reaction that they should be having? Just asking.

And in A Society Perverted by Orwellian Newspeak, Hypersensitivity, and Lack of Clarity, I wrote:

And then there was the young lady who testified before a congressional panel on the issue of mandatory insurance coverage for contraception. That was to show the rest of the world that “feminism” now means women being dependent on others to subsidize their lifestyles rather than standing on their own two feet and budgeting their own priorities.

a recent survey asked 1,058 teens and young adults various questions under the subject of sexual violence, and, according to UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh, the results showed that 10% of the youths admitted to committing an act of sexual violence, and 5% had “attempted or completed rape.”

However, as Prof. Volokh explained, because of the misleading wording and inaccurate definitions of “rape” and “sexual violence” in the survey,  “… 80% of the reported ‘rape[s]’ involved neither force nor the threat of force, and 59% involved only ‘guilt’ or ‘arguing and pressuring victim,’ with no use of force, threat of force, or even alcohol.”

So the results of this survey claiming that more teens are violent now are not examples of America’s decline, given the wildly exaggerated numbers. What is an example of America’s decline is the lack of communication and reading comprehension amongst the teens, and the survey researchers as well.

So there are two problems here, in my view: one, that more recent laws may be reflecting the confused public on what actual acts are and what they are not; and two, that as the culture and literacy have declined in America, so has the idea of personal responsibility. Innocent people may be getting arrested and in some cases convicted for “crimes” which aren’t crimes, and there are false “victims” who don’t want to take responsibility for their decisions or their inability to say “no.”

I want to know what is it with parents these days who are raising such irrational, dependent and irresponsible people? What happened in my generation, or has it really been a gradual thing over time? A century of progressivism has culminated in all this? Can it be reversed?

A Society at War

Apparently there is a war being waged by angry leftists against white males, religious or conservative people, civilized society, and against the free-market capitalist way of life in America. As Robert Wenzel writes in this post, it is not just a war between the sexes. Wenzel says the ones on the offensive want a centrally-planned society.

But we already have a centrally-planned society. Washington controls just about everything now. But one thing Wenzel wrote is that the warriors are going after anything that’s a part of what has raised the standard of living in our supposedly civilized society. i.e. freedom, free markets and voluntary exchange, private property, and a basic Golden Rule in society. So in my view, I think that what the warriors really want is not as much a centrally-planned society, which we already have, but to lower the standard of living for everyone. Sad.