On being brought up by libertarian economists

Sleep vs. resolving conflicts before bed

• Some argue that “never go to bed with an argument unsettled” is bad advice; sleeping cools emotions and often helps resolution.
• Others report the opposite: unresolved conflict ruins sleep and festers overnight.
• Several note situational risks: forcing resolution by a “bedtime deadline” can escalate quarrels, and next-day busyness can lead to avoidance and buried resentment.
• Consensus: couples differ; the strategy is useful only if both partners can handle it without escalation.

Head‑on collisions vs. brick wall: physics fight

• Large subthread debating whether two cars colliding head‑on at 50 mph each equals one car hitting a wall at 100 mph.
• Key points discussed:
  • Kinetic energy ∝ v²; doubling speed quadruples energy.
  • Momentum conservation and reference frames; center‑of‑mass frame as most convenient.
  • Elastic vs. inelastic collisions; cars are closer to inelastic.
  • Crumple zones and whether two cars provide “twice the crumple” vs. an immovable wall.
• Emerging view:
  • Two identical cars at 50 mph head‑on are roughly like each car hitting an ideal wall at 50 mph, not 100 mph.
  • Real walls are not perfectly immovable; real cars are not rigid; intuition is often wrong, and the drivers‑ed simplification is misleading.

Child–parent argument culture and authority

• The article’s “equal intellectual status” in family debates is praised for fostering reasoning and curiosity.
• Critics say this ideal ignores: immature cognition, bad‑faith or stalling arguments from kids, time‑sensitive safety situations, and real‑world authority (lifeguards, teachers, bosses).
• Others distinguish disagreeing on substance from tone and respect; in many cultures, contradicting elders—especially publicly—is taboo regardless of logic.
• Extended discussion of “respect” as human dignity vs. deference to authority.

Libertarianism, economists, and hubris

• Multiple commenters attack American libertarianism as utopian, blind to informal power and externalities, and popular with the affluent.
• Economists in general are described as frequently wrong yet overconfident and reductionist, especially when venturing into non‑economic domains.

Climate change stance and backlash

• The author’s “lukewarm” view on climate risk (warming is real but net harms are uncertain; humans can adapt) is criticized as denialism that underestimates nonlinear, social, and migration impacts.
• Some note he supports open borders in principle, but argue this is politically unrealistic as a primary adaptation strategy.
• Several emphasize that experimenting with the climate system imposes huge, asymmetric risks that policy should minimize.