Comments for John Humphreys

Comment on Political lies & bank regulation by Justin Sean Campbell

Justin Sean Campbell — Sun, 05 Feb 2012 07:22:18 +0000

Another great article. I always enjoy your wit.

Comment on Political lies & bank regulation by Joseph Clark

Joseph Clark — Sun, 05 Feb 2012 03:57:44 +0000

Yeah, what they said.

Comment on Could Ron Paul actually win the nomination? by Sukrit Sabhlok

Sukrit Sabhlok — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 10:27:08 +0000

Great article. Republished on LA.

Sue me if you have copyright issues.

Comment on Could Ron Paul actually win the nomination? by John Humphreys

John Humphreys — Sun, 08 Jan 2012 06:15:10 +0000

On the first point, there is no doubt that Ron Paul means what he says. He has been in congress 24 years and has never voted for a tax increase or unconstitutional spending. Never. He has often voted on his own, because he sticks to his libertarian principles. He has been a passionate opponent of the war on drugs for decades. There is an open question about whether he will be able to achieve his platform (given a hostile congress) but there is no doubt that he means it.

On the second point, I agree that you need to be able to defend yourself. So does Ron Paul. He doesn’t want to get rid of the military… he wants a strong military, kept in America. It is the equivalent of “speak softly and carry a big stick”.

Comment on Could Ron Paul actually win the nomination? by Martin Spencer

Martin Spencer — Sun, 08 Jan 2012 06:06:46 +0000

Thanks for the insights. Ron Paul is my favorite republican candidate too. My biggest problem with his policies is that
- I don’t think that he would follow through on marriage liberalisation or put an end to the war on drugs.
- Sometimes peace requires the use of force. Being against military intervention in the name of peace is like getting rid of police to make our cities safer.

By the way, if he really wants to put some distance between himself and the history of illegal activity by the US, he should pledge to have Henry Kissinger tried for war crimes.

Comment on Defending death threats by John Humphreys

John Humphreys — Sun, 18 Dec 2011 08:27:15 +0000

I don’t know the details of Radio Rwanda, but in the abstract I think people should be allowed to talk about the idea of staging a violent revolution.

Comment on Defending death threats by fidens

fidens — Sun, 18 Dec 2011 08:11:10 +0000

To test the limits of your argument: what about incitement to mass violence, as in the case of Radio Rwanda/RTLM, or terror, e.g. a radical imam promoting violent jihad?

Comment on Defending death threats by John Humphreys

John Humphreys — Sun, 18 Dec 2011 05:57:36 +0000

Christopher Hitchens is clearly copying me:

Comment on The unforgivable stupidity of the anti-banking “libertarians” by Andrew Reynolds

Andrew Reynolds — Sun, 18 Dec 2011 00:59:24 +0000

John,
Just a small correction. The government endorsement of the ratings agencies is explicit, not implicit. There are many parts of banking and financial services legislation, both domestically and internationally, that refer to ratings and the agencies. They just do not call them that, generally using the term “external credit assessment institution (ECAI)”. Google that term and you will just how ingrained the ratings agencies are in the supervisory process internationally.
Like many silly market decisions, this one is forced on the markets through regulation. It is the unregulated part of the market (the hedge funds and others) that give the trading prices some sanity.

Comment on Defending death threats by John Tate (@JoKiTate)

John Tate (@JoKiTate) — Sat, 17 Dec 2011 03:46:39 +0000

I think the use of preemptive force must be legal in the cases where a person has promised to attack you and do it themselves, and arguably in cases where a person has a large enough influence for their requests for killing to be heard. Since he has requested others do it and has no special existing influence, I agree with your decision.