(Edit- Mike Munger, has posted a link to this post on his blog. )No.
Give him time.
He's a few years younger, than Unger, hasn't yet held high office and teaches at Duke, not Harvard.
You are wrong. The correct answer is a resounding 'Yes'!
Why?Coz he's a Math guy- but a totally crap Math guy- and he is illiterate, ignorant and totally and irrevocably shite.
Munger mongered this mischievous nonsense in a blog post from December 2013-
PlayPump: Somebody Ought to Do Something!
Get ‘er Done
How did this fuckwit get to be a Professor? The answer is he's a Math guy but a shite Math guy. He does not know any Econ or Pol Sci, he's just an enormous dickhead.
The shithead thinks that something called 'euvoluntary transactions'- in which there is no buyer or seller remorse- but this means they are are hysteresis free, or fully ergodic- and this militates against 'repugnancy markets'.
Why is this fucked?
Perhaps it is sufficient to quote this. (my comments are in bold)
Siddhanta- be it Unger or Munger, American Professors of essentially shit subjects are themselves essentially shit.The truth is when every concept used is 'essentially contested' it really adds nothing to the debate to continue making Philosophy's 'distinctions without a difference'. In this case, admitting that the definition of things like self-ownership and 'initiating coercion' are, by their nature, essentially contested means that there is no substantive/ procedural dichotomy, dress it up howsoever you will.
Still, the fact that Libertarian philosophy is just as worthless as any other type does tell us something about the nature of Liberty which, deep down, we already know. In nuce, it is that shite is liefer talked than heard.