On being brought up by libertarian economists
Growing up in a household of libertarian economists, where children were encouraged to challenge elders and only arguments—not authority—mattered, prompts debate over whether this rationalist, egalitarian style of parenting is wise or naive. Commenters weigh its benefits for critical thinking against concerns about child development, power dynamics, tradition, and how well such norms translate to real-world hierarchies. The thread also highlights broader skepticism toward libertarian economics and climate “lukewarmism,” alongside a long physics tangent dissecting a classic drivers-ed claim about head-on collisions, illustrating both the strengths and excesses of this argument-first worldview.
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.