Lars P. Syll on how amorality implies morality in the minds of market fundamentalists

Amorality of markets = individual morality and social justice? Depends on the assumptions, like "just deserts." Which is, of course, circular reasoning that assumes the conclusion.

Lars P Syll's Blog
Greg Mankiw — the inequality defender
Lars P. Syll | Professor, Malmo University

See also Paul Krugman's and Dean Baker's responses to Mankiw's "just deserts" at Economist's View, 'It's Not Just Talent and Hard Work' by Mark Thoma

Corey Robin — [Robert] Nozick: Libertarians are “filled…with resentment at other freer ways of being”

Though it is often claimed that the left stands for equality while the right stands for freedom, this notion misstates the actual disagreement between right and left. Historically, the conservative has favored liberty for the higher orders and constraint for the lower orders. What the conservative sees and dislikes in equality, in other words, is not a threat to freedom but its extension. For in that extension, he sees a loss of his own freedom.

Like I said, the fundamental principle of conservatism is that some are better than others and deserve privilege, that is to say, that can "handle" greater freedom. The rest can't and need to be controlled.

Corey Robin
Nozick: Libertarians are “filled…with resentment at other freer ways of being”

Mike Konczal — We Already Tried Libertarianism - It Was Called Feudalism

Mostly stuff we've discussed here in the comments — ad nauseam, but of interest in that Konczal looks at Robert Nozick rather than Murray Rothbard.

The Libs have already spammed the comments over there.

One comment is useful to note, however. Nozick differs in some significant ways from Rothbard, and Rothbard is much more representative of contemporary Libertarianism in the US than Nozick.

Next New Deal — Rortybomb
We Already Tried Libertarianism - It Was Called Feudalism
Mike Konczal
(h/t Mark Thoma at Economist's View)

Unlearning Economics — Yes, Libertarians Really Are Lazy Marxists

I have only really just started studying Marxism in depth (though I am stopping short of Capital for now). Subsequently, while reading Bertell Ollman‘s Alienation: Marx’s Conception of Man in a Capitalist Society, it once again struck me that (right-)libertarianism is really just lazy Marxism. In many ways libertarianism reads like the first third of Marxism: the area which explores methodological questions and the nature of man. Both libertarianism and Marxism are generally fairly agreeable – and in agreement 0 in this area, but the former never really fleshes out its arguments satisfactorily. Often I find, after describing some basic principles (non coercion etc.), libertarians make jump to property rights and capitalism being the bestest thing ever, without fully explaining it.*

I will focus primarily on Robert Nozick and Ludwig von Mises here, as they are the only two libertarians who really explored libertarianism from basic principles of man and his relationship to both nature and economic activity (Murray Rothbard was really an interpretation of Mises in this respect). Overall, I think Nozick and Mises combine to form a fair reflection of minarchist libertarianism.

Unlearning Economics
Yes, Libertarians Really Are Lazy Marxists