@BobMurphyEcon (Thoughts listening to you lately) I have a lot of respect for yo

@BobMurphyEcon
(Thoughts listening to you lately)
I have a lot of respect for you, particularly your falsification of the Saltwater school nonsense – but I don’t require we agree on what is possible, only on what is. You’re very good at what is. Maybe the best we have.

I’m still not sure why both Christians and Rothbardian libertarians share the fundamentalist intuition that we must agree on what is possible or probable vs that we must agree on what is.

Whereas those of us who are empiricists, in the natural law tradition, which is more accurately the anglo classical liberal tradition, only need to agree on what is bad, and prohibit what is bad, so that any permutation and combination of goods may emerge from the markets for cooperation.

That does not require we are correct about what is possible or probable – it’s not a theoretical idealism. It’s purely empirical. And as far as I know that is the western tradition.

Affections
CD