Comments on: UPDATE II: Cyber Warfare: Is It Libertarian?

By: Contemplationist

Contemplationist — Thu, 30 Sep 2010 04:00:32 +0000

Ilana Thats not fair. I was only saying just because the state is doing it, doesn’t mean its bad or would not be done in a market setting. I assign no positive role to the state. I am, depending on mood of the day, a market anarchist or a minarchist. I favor free currency competition and no legal tender laws. I tend to think this will be much much better than the monopoly Federal Reserve.

However, ASSUMING the fed, IF the Aggregate Supply/Aggregate Demand model is correct (i believe it is, and does NOT contradict Austrian theory of malinvestment, only complements it, properly understood), and IF wages are sticky (either because of the state or human nature or both), then monetary easing done properly will boost the economy.

I was only commenting on the (in my opinion) fatuous hyperventilating about inflation that libertarians have been engaging in for the past year only to be stumped over and over again by non-inflation. I hope libertarians take more time to truly understand the sophisticated model of monetary economics.
The view that “printing money creates prosperity” is a stupid straw-man.
Again, you should read Scott Sumner. You don’t have to accept what he says. You can reject monetary econ like Arnold Kling does, but you must understand it, and understand the role of EXPECTATIONS in generating inflation.

By: Stephen Browne

Stephen Browne — Wed, 29 Sep 2010 17:05:50 +0000

Let’s try a thought experiment.

Put a loaded pistol on a table say, 30 feet directly behind you. Take a loaded pistol in hand.

Now, 30 feet directly in front of you is a raving madmad screaming, “I’m going to kill you! I’m going to kill you!” as he edges slowing in a wide circle around you, but definitely in the direction of that pistol…

By: TokyoTom

TokyoTom — Wed, 29 Sep 2010 01:28:09 +0000

Ilana, one can say they prefer a nonviolent attack on nuclear facilities to a violent one, but one can hardly say that ANY of the activities of a state are “libertarian”.

Libertarian-type actions by governments return power to citizens. Israel, in contrast, continually insists that its citizens (and ours) serve the purposes of government (and of the military/police state industrialists who direct its activities

By: Robert Glisson

Robert Glisson — Wed, 29 Sep 2010 00:29:00 +0000

I have a problem with the whole question. Not your article Ilana; but, the Iranian nuclear question. Iran states that it is only building nuclear electric generators, while its loud mouthed president runs his mouth about ‘wiping Israel off the map.’ I know that if A-Jab keeps up the rhetoric, violence is going to occur. Sources I have read state that that though they export crude oil, Iranians have to import natural gas and refined gasoline to run their generators and vehicles. The nuclear energy that they are obtaining is far too low for warheads, but enough for power plants or so they say. The US Government lies more often than it tells the truth, so I can’t believe what I read in the news. I am glad that someone has developed a worm for nuclear weapons but in the case of Iran, is it necessary?

By: CompassionateFascist

CompassionateFascist — Tue, 28 Sep 2010 23:16:28 +0000

I’m not impressed…Iran’s pirated copy of Windows 95 was probably pretty EZ to take down. And I don’t care if at some point, facing this “existential threat”, Israel decides to turn Jihadist Iran into a slab of radioactive glass. I just don’t want the USA doing it for them; tired of this tail-wagging-dog routine. Too much blowback. Cf. 9/11.

By: Myron Pauli

Myron Pauli — Tue, 28 Sep 2010 22:54:20 +0000

What is so wonderfully juicy is that one can never get to the bottom of what happened (or is happening). For example:

(1) Dr. Ahmed screwed up on his own and is blaming Israeli-American induced software

(2) Uranium/software supplier Boris screwed up or sold some junk already containing a virus/worm.

(3) The Israelis (or Americans or Saudis or French or Chinese or ??) sent a virus/worm.

And how does one get to the truth? And what is the response?

And what of the UN – denounce the “Zionist entity” for all computer problems the world over?? (not that the UN would mind doing it but even that level of stupidity might not cut it with Jimmy Carter)

Certainly no sobs for the Iranian mullahs. And software is better than dozens of bombs, or radioactive goop flying, ineffective sanctions, a continuous blockade. And all of them are better than an American style
Liberation/Invasion/Permanent-Occupation and regional destabilization.

Other then the collateral damage to Ahmadinejad’s Facebook Page (my joke) – no lives were lost. So the operation and/or non-operation was quite cute.

By: Contemplationist

Contemplationist — Tue, 28 Sep 2010 21:50:37 +0000

Yes indeed, utilitarianism helps here in boundary cases. Better less damage than more if possible.

By: Mike Marks

Mike Marks — Tue, 28 Sep 2010 20:50:37 +0000

When I first heard the news I was suspicious but not certain about where this worm might have been designed. It strikes me as a very clever way to if not destroy the “infected system” it could certainly delay its utility for some time. The beauty of the solution is that no civilians are killed and I’m sure the Iranians are thoroughly frustrated with their useless equipment. If nothing else it buys the Israelis time …