This is so absurd. People disagree (amazingly) on what "in the long run we're all dead" means. People disagree on Robin's contribution. People disagree on the value of Paul Krugman.
It's not "a trap" when people - in blogs which are meant to turn over these things - actually then go out and say that they think you're wrong any more than you thinking I'm wrong on Robin means you've laid "a trap" for me.
And if we disagree a lot it's not because I'm some sneaky trickster... it's because we disagree a lot! These things are pretty symmetric, after all! It takes two to tango. When you think "gee that Daniel is always throwing up disagreements with me", just remember from my angle it looks like you're always the one being cantankerous. It's probably just that we think about things differently.
Posts
Daniel
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that I have warned you about the uselessness of engaging with the libertarians. It looks like Bob Murphy agrees that attempts at engagement between libertarians and non-libertarians are a waste of everyone's time.
Engaging with anyone who disagrees with you is going to be a difficult experience, but it's better than engaging only those who agree with you, even if in the latter case you don't get cycles of frustration.
DeleteJonathan - There is a middle ground between engaging only with those who agree with you and engaging with everyone who disagrees with you. Non-libertarians are simply wasting their time when they try to engage with libertarians. That time would be better spent seeking out and engaging with other people they disagree with.
DeleteSo... why are you engaging with this libertarian?
DeleteThe trap he's talking about is Robin's laughably nebulous description of the relationship between Nietzsche and Hayek which he's alleging exists. It creates a situation where you can only ever guess at what it is he's saying and he can always reply "Guess again". That's not a game worth playing.
ReplyDeleteI would put it differently. Robin is clearly not making a strong claim about influence. By calling it "nebulous" you seem to agree. Bob is frustrated that if you try to say he's making a strong claim any fair person will say "but he's not making a strong claim".
DeleteAs you say - this is not a game worth playing.
If you think it's "nebulous" then don't attribute a non-nebulous claim to Robin and you're in the clear. What's so hard about that? Bob seems to think that's very hard.
(I wouldn't personally use the word "nebulous" to describe it, but we seem to be hitting on a similar theme).
For what it's worth, Daniel, people often ask me why I keep engaging with you. For example, in this post you make it sound like I have a problem, in general, with people disagreeing with me, when obviously the "trap" to which I referred was that guy's I'm-not-saying-it's-Nietzche-but-it's-Nietzche post on the Austrians.
ReplyDeleteBut I know better. You wouldn't intentionally make me look worse to your readers than I really was.
Yep and I get that too. I hope everybody gets that the over-the-topness of this post is just poking you. Obviously I continue to talk with you after all!
DeleteSee would characterize it as an "I'm not saying it's a direct influence of Nietzsche but there is a broader continuity" essay. Of course if you say "Robin said it's a direct influence" people will say he didn't in that case. That's not a "trap" at all.
Maybe this will make the point clearer: for it to be a trap people will have had to concede your point, and that's the whole point - they don't! And if you're wrong in characterizing the essay you're obviously wrong about it being some kind of devious trap.
re: "You wouldn't intentionally make me look worse to your readers than I really was."
The title was I hope a clear poke at the ribs... but I quoted you verbatim precisely so that I wouldn't be misrepresenting the claim.
I agree that Bob clearly likes engaging with Daniel, in this case the difference that make a difference is Corey (and his piece on Nietzche).
ReplyDelete