Originally Posted by brucds
I truly appreciated Conn's admission that his version of "libertarianism" doesn't have room for any empiricism, disagreement over whether non-libertarian policies might actually ever "work" in the actually existing world and that the only "real" liberaterians are required to be ideological hacks.
This is why the "Libertarianism" touted by so many on the right is a joke. Might as well be a "Marxist" if you want to live in LaLaLand. So glad the liberal left isn't an ideological sandbox.
He's talking about macro, idiot. No controlled experiments = no empiricism, duh. It's all just a bunch of stories told about a very few incidents with people on different sides never talking about the best anecdotes the other side has to offer. Ex: progressives never talk about the immediate turnaround of the depression of 1920-21. The greatest one-year GNP drop between 1870 and today... which rebounded in one year. But we got stuck with Bush/Obama/who-the-hell-knows-because-this-could-take-forever instead of Brain-dead-Wilson/Harding.