|
People should be free (free of violence/coercion) unless there is a good reason to violate their freedom. Therefore, the burden of proof is always on those people who want to violate that freedom. All government action is either coercive or irrelevant. If it is irrelevant, then it should occur because it is costly. If it is coercive then it needs to be defended according to its outcomes. The burden of proof remains with you. Unless you hold the absurd moral position that "whatever existed yesterday is good" or "freedom and violence are morally equivalent". The libertarian position is not loony. But you continue saying this again and again simply to give offence. Irrespective of the value or otherwise of your arguments... I do not respect you (the real you) because of this. You have shown yourself to be a capable neoclassical economist, but (in my opinion) a narrow thinker who misses most of the most important lessons of economic analysis (the dynamics) and a shallow person. Still happy to share a beer with you some time (to the degree that this is possible from Bangkok)... but I used to respect you.
| 
