|
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". Contrary to your argument, one can be agnostic on the merits of "whatever existed yesterday" - or even hold the view that "probably around half (or even more) of what happenned yesterday was bad" - and still favour the onus of proof being on those who seek change, because of the existence of adjustment costs. In practice, no doubt some things that happenned yesterday are good and some bad. However, unless you can mount a convincing case that most of what happenned yesterday was bad, adjustment costs mean that the onus should remain with those seeking change - rather than adopting a general pro-change rule. Regarding your "freedom and violence are morally equivalent" provocation, as you know I have previously argued against what I see as attempts of Libertarians to twist the language in this way. Among other things, for example, I have drawn on dictionary definitions to debunk the "tax=theft" proposition (which is a close relation to the "government=violence" proposition). I have also indicated why the Libertarian conception of freedom is actually a limited (negative) conception, and that when one considers positive freedoms, it is clear that the either/or choice you set up between government action and freedom is overly simplistic. The libertarian position is not loony. But you continue saying this again and again simply to give offence. True. 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. Sorry to hear that. Still happy to share a beer with you some time... Likewise.
| 
