I am still trying to come to grips with the Steve Landsburg piece on letting people die enough so that I can write a cogent analysis of it. Part of the issue is that I am busy doing other things, but the bigger problem is that the piece is in itself so bizarre and irrational (while seeming intelligent and scholarly) that it is difficult to tease out where to begin to discuss it.
It falls into that frustrating category of “this is absolutely completely wrong but it sounds good but I know it is a load of crap and I can’t begin to pick it apart.” Law school was supposed to give me the tools to completely demolish arguments like that, and usually I can. I have noticed, however, that the more absolutely batshit crazy an argument is — especially if it is phrased in “academic” or “economic” terms — the harder it is for me to wrap my head around.
I like to think that this is because I am simply too nice a person to be able to put myself into such a borderline sociopathic headspace, but it’s probably something less exalted.