Chomsky on US foreign policy
Okay, let it load, and then take a look at the conversation around 6:30. Then scroll down and take a look at my post on the possibility of a welfare liberal libertarian...
So, we're going to do at the Western Standard what we've become accustomed to doing: having a little bit more guts than our competitors. We're going to host that Hezboliberal.com website. Not because we agree with it but because the Liberals think they can bully their opponents into submission.
Well, try bullying us. We weren't afraid of defying rioting mobs, and we sure as hell won't be afraid of taking on some Liberal lawyers. (Mr. Régimbald, our address for service of any writs can be found here.)
You can see the revived Hezboliberal.com website here, hosted on our server. Whether you agree with the content or not isn't the point. This is about stopping a bully. And about having some fun with some thin-skinned pols who can dish it out pretty good, but can't take it.
"If we set up a government, we can expect a benefit of 60. There is, however, a 70% chance of this government engaging in war, which would yield a harm of -90. If we multiply the probability of engaging in war by the harm of a war, we get -63. Subtracting the expected harm from the expected benefit yields a net expected benefit of -3."Bob wants a welfare state. He is a genuine welfare liberal. But he really doesn't want war. He sings to himself, "War. Huh. What is it good for? Absolutely nothing!" And he believes the lyrics. But his calculation has led him to the conclusion that he should expect a harm if we set up a welfare state, even though Bob wants that. What should Bob conclude? He should conclude that, in practice, we shouldn't have a welfare state (because it is likely to engage in war) even though, in theory, we should have a welfare state.
"Graduating from an Ivy League University
doesn't necessarily mean you're smart"
Yup... that's their advertising campaign. Here's the website, and here's an article on the subject. At least some of the faculty and higher-ups at the University aren't big fans of this. Neither am I. (Which isn't to say that I think Bush is particularly intelligent. I just think this is a poor PR move).
PS. Yes, the campaign seems to work. My blogging about it is an indication of this fact. It's still a dumb move, though.
|Lindy at the 2006 Liberty Summer Seminar. Video courtesy of Janet Neilson.|
He was awesome. Not only did he stay up later than the rest of us, he also rose early in the morning (8 a.m.) to play tennis with Ian Ferraro. I was supposed to play too, but managed to sleep through the first thirty or so minutes and, well, just sort of stayed in bed. At any rate, here's the very first quote back about the Seminar from none other than Mike Walker:
"This is the most fun I have had in years!"
He said that a few times, actually. Mostly while dancing on the stage in a circle with myself, Ollivia Sexton, Janet Neilson, Matt Bufton, and a few others (I had a few too many Liberty Ales to remember everyone in the circle). He bought up a copy of Lindy's CD and sent him an email letting him know that he's listening to the CD over and over on his trip through Newfoundland.
Really, check out Lindy for yourself over here on my space.
It was also cool to have a few conversations with Jason Cherniak, who blogs about the Seminar here. It's a nice post, and it looks like Cherniak will probably come back next year for another round of libertarian good times.
Speaking of blog posts, Chris Edey (a pretty cool UW grad) posted about the Seminar over here. He mentions the great Mike Walker story, and the rain.
Victor Wong, who blogs at the Phantom Observer, has a good post about Ezra Levant being a "liberal" (go read it yourself). It is a bit irksome that he decides to call the event "conservative" and concludes by saying that events like this Seminar show that conservatives aren't stuffed shirts. It's not that, of course, it's libertarian. I always ask the speakers to speak on subjects where they happen to agree with libertarians, even if they are not. And I don't care who attends. In fact, I prefer it if non-libertarians attend, since libertarians already agree with what most of the speakers talk about. At any rate, I guess this will become pretty clear if and when we decide to focus on something like the War on Drugs, say.
I'm sure there will be more blog buzz about this in the next few days. I'll link to anyone who talks about the Seminar, so long as you let me know (email me, or drop me a comment).