Tag Archives | Conflation Debate

Oh, hey. More conflation debate: P. M. Lawrence vs. Stephan Kinsella vs. Kevin Carson – and still more evidence that some serious fnords are afoot in this debate.

J. H. Huebert and Walter Block have a second reply up. Shawn Wilbur has weighed in again with some helpful remarks on terminology, and Quasibill offers a hypothetical of relevance to the limited-liability debate. I’m going to try to get back into this over the weekend.

Incidentally, I’ve created a Conflation Debate blog category for easy reference.

Oh, there’s also an exchange between Stephan Kinsella and Brad Spangler here. More stuff to weigh in on – later!

More from Stephan Kinsella here and here, and another reply from Kevin Carson here.

It’s frustrating not to be able to jump in here yet (especially since Stephan’s and Peter Klein’s interpretations of my position have grown increasingly strange, and I want to grouse about it in detail) but I’m surrounded by stacks of term papers and final exams right now ….

If I’d known how many more parts there’d be I wouldn’t have started the damn Latin titles. In any case, my last post should’ve been Pars Septima, not Pars Septa. Argh! Oh well.

Wait, this post has an actual topic: Shawn Wilbur weighs in on whether big chain bookstores benefit from state intervention. (Spoiler alert: yes.)

More from me on the conflation debate anon.