Comments on: Libertarians Are Not Idiots

By: Eric Sundwall

Eric Sundwall — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 19:46:18 +0000

Yes, nice post. I hate the pragmatic accusation. The idea of contracts is tricky. The most libertarian scenario in this regard still has to function in the context of meaty legal precedent, that seems necessarily statist, in order to derive supposed legitimacy and often masked with the right of force with no remorse. But of course humans can be insanely irrational (the dog keeper example being quite good) and whether they are inherently mean, selfish or violent, often seems less likely as they are stupid. The cunning, punishing and controlling the stupid seems as likely a derivation of the state as anything sometimes.

Love the whole ‘Market Anarchy Carnival’ bit btw.

By: Welcome to the Market Anarchy Blog Carnival, Without Hyphens Edition « without hyphens

Tue, 29 Jan 2008 08:42:38 +0000

[...] Z. at …no third solution has submitted a great piece entitled “Libertarians Are Not Idiots“, highlighting his response to the charge that we are all a bunch of idealistic morons with [...]

By: David Z

David Z — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 20:42:08 +0000

Thanks for the comments Kip. This post was exhausting. A good way to end the week, and start a four-day weekend…

By: KipEsquire

KipEsquire — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 20:11:29 +0000

Great post.

A few points about specific performance:

1. It can never be used to enforce a labor contract. Courts have long been unambiguous about this — it would violate the Thirteenth Amendment. Only money damages or, very rarely, negative injunctive relief* are available. (*NIR = “I can’t make you work for him, but I can order you not to work for anyone else. Only available in extreme cases, typically performing artists, newscasters, etc.).

2. In practice, specific performance is usually only ordered in the context of replevin, which is a lawsuit to retrieve property improperly withheld after a breached contract(e.g., if we have a contract for you to watch my dog and then refuse to return her to me, then I am going to sue you for the dog and not the value of the dog — the court will order specific performance on the contract and coerce you to return it). From the perspective of the defendant, there is (usually) little difference in terms of how coerced he feels between “turn over the property” and “pay for the property.” The difference to the plaintiff, however, can be substantial (woof!).

Did I mention that this was a great post? :-)