<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1" ?>




































































  <rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
    <channel>
      <title>Comments On: Libertarianism on the couch
    
      by Harold Henderson</title>
      <link>http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/08/20/libertarianism-couch</link>
      <atom:link href="http://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/Rss.xml?oid=941710&amp;id=comments" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />      <description>Comments On: Libertarianism on the couch
    
      by Harold Henderson</description>
      <language>en-us</language>
      <copyright>Copyright 2009 Chicago Reader. All rights reserved. This RSS file is offered to individuals, Chicago Reader readers, and non-commercial organizations only. Any commercial websites wishing to use this RSS file, please contact Chicago Reader.</copyright>
      <webMaster>wil@desert.net (Chicago Reader Webmaster)</webMaster>
      <pubDate>Sun, 22 Nov 2009 00:00:01 -0600</pubDate>
      <lastBuildDate>Sun, 22 Nov 2009 04:30:00 -0600</lastBuildDate>
      <generator>Foundation</generator>
      <docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
      
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: Libertarianism on the couch]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/08/20/libertarianism-couch/#967379]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/08/20/libertarianism-couch/#967379]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[John Powers]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[The trouble with that reasoning is the State does not know where to stop on collectivizing industry (liquor distribution being my current nemesis state monopoly-why does the state mandate this?).  
    
    I am of the Liberal opinion that the State should mandate forced savings (Social Security, if you will) and K-12 Education.  I am also of the Liberal opinion that the individual should be in charge of spending their Savings or Education investment, rather than the State.
    
    JBP
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by John Powers]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Thu, 23 Aug 2007 14:01:33 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: Libertarianism on the couch]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/08/20/libertarianism-couch/#951700]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/08/20/libertarianism-couch/#951700]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Harold]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[Forcing people to pay taxes for things that have to be provided collectively is not merely good but essential to civilized life. Are you contending that there are no such things?
    
    Also, you standard of "state sponsored monopolites" seems a little broad, i.e. including anything that the state subsidizes or regulates to any extent. If education taxes were tomorrow diverted entirely into individual voucher payments that traveled with the student, who could choose any school or none, would you quit complaining about your education tax? Or still call it a wrongful state-sponsored monopoly?
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Harold]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Thu, 23 Aug 2007 07:52:18 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: Libertarianism on the couch]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/08/20/libertarianism-couch/#969954]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/08/20/libertarianism-couch/#969954]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[John Powers]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[Yes but Sears isn't going to throw you in jail for not shopping there, and in fact, I can start my own store if I really don't like Sears. Try telling either tax district in Schaumburg and St. Charles that you want to send your kids to White Pines Academy, so you don't want to pay property tax.
    
    State sponsored monopolies: Education, Healthcare, Liquor Distribution, Highway Construction, Casino Gambling are the ones that will have you jailed for daring to be independent of them.  
    
    Forcing people to make the wrong choice (or go to jail) is bad, not good.
    
    JBP
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by John Powers]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Wed, 22 Aug 2007 09:08:23 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: Libertarianism on the couch]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/08/20/libertarianism-couch/#953204]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/08/20/libertarianism-couch/#953204]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Harold]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[Right. Exit ("love it or leave it") is easier to exercise in private business; voice ("stay and change it") is easier to exercise in public bodies. But that's not a black-and-white distinction. You can buy stock in Sears and try to change it. You can exit from Schaumburg and move to St. Charles.  The two kinds of organization have different strengths and weaknesses; it's not good/bad in either direction.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Harold]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Wed, 22 Aug 2007 08:40:43 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: Libertarianism on the couch]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/08/20/libertarianism-couch/#971989]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/08/20/libertarianism-couch/#971989]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[John Powers]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[H,
    But the difference is the opt-out feature of private business.  If you don't like Sears, you can go to Target.  If you don't like your local public school, you still have to pay for it, or you can go to jail.  
    
    Part of the Catholic Cathecism is that the individual use his own prudential judgment as to how to provide for the poor.  Which also strikes me as (un)common sense.
    
    JBP
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by John Powers]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Tue, 21 Aug 2007 09:26:49 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: Libertarianism on the couch]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/08/20/libertarianism-couch/#950771]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/08/20/libertarianism-couch/#950771]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Harold]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[Of course government is suboptimal, but also self correcting. If my county doesn't offer my favorite service, maybe they get more votes if they decide to provide it.
    
    In the real world self-correction takes a long time and is imperfect. How long have GM and Sears and Daley been screwing their customers? As I recall, there's a considerable body of Catholic thought along the lines that the "common sense" of free markets requires a healthy dose of correction in the form of a preferential option for the poor.
    
    What I like about the Crooked Timber piece is that they're taking the discussion to a deeper level than we usually do here. RTWT.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Harold]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Tue, 21 Aug 2007 07:28:59 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: Libertarianism on the couch]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/08/20/libertarianism-couch/#956489]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/08/20/libertarianism-couch/#956489]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[John Powers]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[Of course Free Markets are suboptimal, but also self correcting.  If my corner store does not carry my favorite candy, maybe they get more business if they decide to carry it.  Wouldn't an optimal system have all the candy I need at a one stop shop?
    
    There must be some iterative self-correcting approach to providing economic goods that takes advantage of people using common sense to make good decisions without resorting to dogmatic declarations ("There are three courses of action open to the libertarian").  
    
    JBP
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by John Powers]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Mon, 20 Aug 2007 14:12:02 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
      
    </channel>
  </rss>




