Kind of just a quick thread response to this post and some of what I believe its thread might or might have already provoked. This is the seemingly implicit idea that complete adherence with Austrian orthodoxy is the only way to go, that all other forms of economics and political writings are inherently crap, and that questioning said orthodoxy implies either that one is no longer a libertarian or is practicing poor economics.
I, and I should hope everyone here, is a libertarian (or not) precisely because we believe in the truth of the matter, because we believe the truth is a libertarian (or not) one. If this is indeed the case then any amount of searching into different ideologies or questioning of the orthodoxy is acceptable, commendable, and possibly necessary. Furthermore we all disagree to a certain extent, and therefore simply because one disagrees with certain aspects of a standpoint, does not mean that they are lying, or necessarily wrong.
I'm not sure how much of this needs to be said, but the point is simple, that we are fallible, and so we must not shirk or close our minds to the idea of other possibilities. I'm partially throwing this out there because I'm probably going to make another thread or so on, what around here, constitutes as "dangerous" ideas, similar to the BWF thread, but I'm also unlikely to stop being a libertarian any time soon, for reasons I will make clear in another, very libertarian, thread, as I continue on my journey to cover this forum with nothing but Neodoxy threads.
I look forward to your post. To be perfectly honest, purely Austrian economics, has always seemed like oversimplification in some areas. With the emphasis on "seemed", I've only read a relatively small amount on Austrian economics, a small amount compared to most people on this forum.
Perhaps it's more the dogma that things have to be "complex" to be true. Austrian economics is pretty "complex" the more advanced you go, but I am sorry no amount of equations and gobbledygook will disguise a blatantly false, idiotic theory. To the extent that it can gain from insights of other schools (like public choice theory), I see no issue with them (and neither did any of its major figures.) Unless you want to buy in the ignorant belief of many of the school's critics (and even some proponents) that it is non-fallibilistic in its approach.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
awesome thread. :)
+++ will read again!
Ambition is a dream with a V8 engine - Elvis Presley
as I continue on my journey to cover this forum with nothing but Neodoxy threads.
:|
@Jon Irenicus
Then the very argument that needs to be made is against the "gobbledygook", blatant fallacy, and idea that truth must be complex, and it is wherever those things are found that we should reject these false dogmas.
@Wheylous
Problem Wheylous?
This is the seemingly implicit idea that complete adherence with Austrian orthodoxy is the only way to go...
Are you a mind reader? How do you know what we are thinking? Is it because anyone who disagrees with you obviously cannot be rational, you think, and thus must be an adherent of some orthodoxy?
...that all other forms of economics and political writings are inherently crap...
You have a seemingly implicit idea that if someone insists that say, 2+2=4, and rejects all the infinitude of other opinions on the subject [=3, =5, etc ], then he is wrong. Thinking all other forms of arithmatic are inherently crap proves the fellow is a blind dogmatist.
I've got news for you. You are not the only one with a mind. A few other guys on the forum have one too, and from what I have seen, some have minds far superior to yours. I base this on your poor use of logic in some of your posts.
Not only that, you are not the only one with an open mind. Many of the Austrains here, if not most or all, were not born with a copy of Human Action in their little fists. Quite a few were exposed to all the Keynesian lore that you are discovering only now way before they ever heard of Mises. Been there, done that, seen the idiocy of it. Only after that, in slow halting steps, did they conclude that AE has it right.
...and that questioning said orthodoxy implies either that one is no longer a libertarian or is practicing poor economics.
Qustioning is fine. But in my considered opinion, deciding that AE has it wrong, that BWF doesn't apply during recessions, that the multiplier exists, that stimulus packages are wonderful things, does indeed imply both those things. You are no longer a libertarian, because you think helping the unemployed justifies theft and destruction of private property. You are practicing poor economics, because Keynesianism is as full of holes as a Swiss cheese.
...simply because one disagrees with certain aspects of a standpoint, does not mean that they are lying, or necessarily wrong...
You are only wrong if you disagree with the truth. But when you do, you are indeed wrong. The spirit of inquiry is laudable, but it does not follow that 2+2=5. Truth is not a democracy. You are entitled to your opinion, however foolish or misinformed, but a right to an opinion does not make that opinion right.
...we must not shirk or close our minds to the idea of other possibilities...
Exploring them is fine. But make sure you respect those who disagree with you, and don't go whining that they are blind fanatics simply because they show that you are wrong in ways your thinking processes may not grasp.
Humility, my son, is the key here.
RobinHood: I've got news for you. You are not the only one with a mind. A few other guys on the forum have one too, and from what I have seen, some have minds far superior to yours. I base this on your poor use of logic in some of your posts.
Yes, well, not everyone can be as smart as me, the infallible avatar of luck. But Neodoxy is a valuable contributor to this forum.
"Are you a mind reader?"
Yes.
"How do you know what we are thinking?"
Because I'm a mind reader. And spending almost three years around this site and people in general long enough to know that when people thing that they've found truth they generally don't like it questioned.
"You have a seemingly implicit idea that if someone insists that say, 2+2=4, and rejects all the infinitude of other opinions on the subject [=3, =5, etc ], then he is wrong. Thinking all other forms of arithmatic are inherently crap proves the fellow is a blind dogmatist."
So what would you say to the Marxist who believes that he is perfectly correct in his reasoning and doesn't pay any attention to 2+2=5 rational arguments?
"I've got news for you. You are not the only one with a mind. A few other guys on the forum have one too"
Oh, that's good, I was getting nervous there.
"and from what I have seen, some have minds far superior to yours."
Incorrect. I am the smartest person on earth and all minds are inferior to mine. I know, I've read them all.
"I base this on your poor use of logic in some of your posts."
Logic is superfluous when you have finest mind in the world.
"Not only that, you are not the only one with an open mind."
Good, then my work here is done and it would seem you agree with my post.
"Many of the Austrains here, if not most or all, were not born with a copy of Human Action in their little fists."
Have you ever seen a newborn Austrian pup?
"Quite a few were exposed to all the Keynesian lore that you are discovering only now way before they ever heard of Mises."
And most of them were never schooled in any sort of serious economics before discovering it. And yes, I heard about Keynesianism last wednesday and I thought it was a really fascinating idea.
"But in my considered opinion, deciding that AE has it wrong, that BWF doesn't apply during recessions, that the multiplier exists, that stimulus packages are wonderful things, does indeed imply both those things."
I agree on the last one. As for the first, not necessarily, as for the second by that admission then Rothbard, Mises, and Hayek were not Austrians.
"You are no longer a libertarian, because you think helping the unemployed justifies theft and destruction of private property."
1. Oh, woe is me for I have been cast forth from the garden of libertarianism
2. Well there goes at least a fourth of people who call themselves libertarians including Hayek and probably Mises.
3. Good to know we have the thought police and the lord definer of libertarianism here.
"You are practicing poor economics, because Keynesianism is as full of holes as a Swiss cheese."
Oh for shame, I have been caught by the high libertarian concils practicing black economics akin to the high Marxists of the socialists templar. At any ratee, I agree with the post-comma remark.
"You are only wrong if you disagree with the truth."
Deep.
"But make sure you respect those who disagree with you, and don't go whining that they are blind fanatics simply because they show that you are wrong in ways your thinking processes may not grasp."
That's exactly what I'm advocating. And how would they grasp things I can't? I'm a mind reader...
"Humility, my son, is the key here."
Can you get me a definition for hypocrisy?
Also, do me a favor and try to understand what I'm saying next time.
"Yes, well, not everyone can be as smart as me, the infallible avatar of luck."
F***. I forgot you were on here. Everybody please amend my post to say that I was the second finest mind in the world and everyone EXCEPT gotlucky is fallible.
"But Neodoxy is a valuable contributor to this forum."
Thank you for saying that gotlucky :)
@ Jon Irenicus
My impression was likely influenced by the dogma that "complex = correct". I'm not actually sure how to explain the reason why I feel it is oversimplified. (The oversimplification comment might give people the wrong idea, so I feel it necessary to point out that I'm not a Keynesian, I find all math-intense economic theories to be bullshit really.)
Sorry Neodoxy,
I forgot I am dealing with an internet personality. You'll be fine. Just keep doing what you're doing.
well, not everyone can be as smart as me
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DhrfhjLd9e4
"As in a kaleidoscope, the constellation of forces operating in the system as a whole is ever changing." - Ludwig Lachmann
"When A Man Dies A World Goes Out of Existence" - GLS Shackle
Neo, you're strawmanning in regard to that particular example since the thread was about BWF vs. Keynesianism, not Austrianism vs. Keynesianism. Thus even if you were correct in that thread it says nothing against the comment disparaging Keynesianism. If the BWF is irrelevant in the discussion, it doesn't mean that you struck any blow against Austrian economics. I'm sure you realise that.
Also you're conflating Austrian economics and libertarianism here. There are many 'libertarian' positions that I have rejected over the years. Many fewer Austrian ones, if any.
"Neo, you're strawmanning in regard to that particular example since the thread was about BWF vs. Keynesianism, not Austrianism vs. Keynesianism."
If I did so that was in no way my intention.
"If the BWF is irrelevant in the discussion, it doesn't mean that you struck any blow against Austrian economics. I'm sure you realise that."
I do, I'm not trying to argue that. I don't understand why I'm having such a hard time being understood these days...
"Also you're conflating Austrian economics and libertarianism here. There are many 'libertarian' positions that I have rejected over the years. Many fewer Austrian ones, if any."
I find that they are more or less identical around here, but you're right that there was some conflation. This was conscious one because they are so closely tied, even if there is a lot of wiggle room in the term "libertarian".
I understood you. I was just pointing out a possible strawman.