Does it concern anyone here that all the contributors to this site seem to be old, white, vageuly douchey looking males? I'm honestly not offering a criticism, merely an observation. It is curious to me that the goals of libertarianism seem to be exclusively or predominately extolled among white males (or at least white people). Is this assumed merely to be a coincedence? Or perhaps a result of historical heritage? I am sincerely curious to know the opinion of people on this site. For my part I am a white male, and I find the Austrain and libertarian arguments to be persuasive. But i also find it possibly disconscerting that everyone who shares my opinion seems also to be white and, often, male.
Josh, I moved this to the Thread Graveyard. Calling LvMI folk "douchey" on LvMI property is obviously unacceptable.
Are you talking about the forum or the non-community part of Mises.org?
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
There is no greater qualified species than the whitus maleus douchey lookingess.
I'm Indian, and I am brown-skinned. A much required hiatus, no?
Hey, did I miss Sukrit(the name sounds Indian to me)?
Josh should probably try being on orkut, to find lots of Indian followers of the Austrian schoool!
I am referring mostly to the writers I see on the mises blog, which is the content that I frequent.
I am not aware of the current support of Austrain/libertarian ideas among Indians. I should be clear in stating that I am very hapy to accept my own ignorance in this area. I am both young, and new to the ideas of both Austrain economics and libertariansism. But I am also painfully aware of my own position in the socioeconomic ladder. I should expect that it is much easier for a moderately wealthy individual to trumpet the virtues of the free market than a poor one.
i thought you were joking about moving my topic to the graveyard, but it seems not. I hoped for a more refined sense of humor on this board, but I guess that was optimistic.
I should also add that my criticism, which has racial and qualitatively subjective (douchey?) undertones, is important, at least in my mind. If the goal is to spread the cause, within the nation (USA) or globally, i think it is relevant to at least address the idea that most of the contributors to this site are white males. I suppose my comment that they [contributors] look vaguely "douchey" is unfair, given that i don't know these people. But I still think it is important to conisder what the general public might surmise from frequenting this site. I don't think it is insignificant that most of the contributors are white males, at least in a purley emotional, socially conscious sense. And I think it is a great lesson of the Austrian school that actions are motivated by emotional drivers. I would have hoped that the interest of free exchange of ideas would predominate on this forum, but I see that moderators have a different ideal of what is free to be discussed.
Josh:I am not aware of the current support of Austrain/libertarian ideas among Indians. I should be clear in stating that I am very hapy to accept my own ignorance in this area. I am both young, and new to the ideas of both Austrain economics and libertariansism.
Actually here in India the internet hasn't penetrated well enough for people to know easily about the Mises institute and what it teaches. And Indian libraries have no free-market books at all. So, there lies the problem.
With increasing internet availability as days go by, there are sure to be more followers.
In fact I was converted pro-market by a couple of my friends on orkut. We still keep the discussions going and make sure we tell people why the system we have in place is not actually a free market.
It is very meaningful to hear that message, Prashanth Perumal. I didn't expect this topic to be sent to the thread graveyard, but i nonetheless think the content is relevant. What you are saying is, in my mind, an evident outgrowth of what I was saying. My cultural upbringing is that I am, relatively, economically privileged and also socially exposed to the ideas of classical liberalism. I should think that a less economicallly priveleged individual might defend the tenants of classical liberalism less aggressively, but I may be wrong.
Josh: I would have hoped that the interest of free exchange of ideas would predominate on this forum, but I see that moderators have a different ideal of what is free to be discussed.
I would have hoped that the interest of free exchange of ideas would predominate on this forum, but I see that moderators have a different ideal of what is free to be discussed.
Or like in Mr1001Night's case, where you would be branded as a troll, in proverbial McCarthyist fashion, and banned. The people that do that here are only presenting a fascist portrait of themselves.
Yes, they are.
So?
I guess my answer to "so?" is that if you have any interest in these ideas spreading, you may need to make clear the idea that old white guys tend to flock to this idea not because it benefits old white guys, but for some other reason. I don't think it helps the cause of this site, in courting the general interest, that all the writers are old white guys. I suppose you could argue that it is merely a coincedence, but most people would probably not see it as a coincidence. It is, to my mind, the great innovation and truth of Austrain theory that economic reality is conditioned and set by the subjective considerations of freely acting individuals. I guess my point is that a freely acting individual, seeing a site full of free market supporting white males, might surmise that these people have some motivation other than "liberty" to support the free market. I think if you ignore this reality you are either underserving the goal of spreading liberty, or you are acrtively ignoring the realities of human psychology
In the end only content matters, and not aesthetics or irrelevancies like race or sex.
I hope somebody other than 'capital pumper' responds to my posts
People become libertarians because they possess abnormally developed critical thinking skills and have the ability to think laterally and "outside the box". Usually white people tend to be better educated than non-whites. Also, males tend to be more anti-authoritarian than females. And the fact that most authors on the site are older men only reflects the fact that they've spent their lives doing PhDs, etc. in order to reach the point where they can become public intellectuals.
The West in general has a strong tradition of scepticism that has helped preserve individual liberty far better than in the East.
P.S. The moderators on this site are hyper-sensitive about anyone criticizing Austro-libertarian authors or the LvMI, even if they're polite. Strangely, their dogmatism isn't shared by some of the leading Austrian thinkers. You get used to it - don't let it put you off the ideas.
Josh:I guess my answer to "so?" is that if you have any interest in these ideas spreading, you may need to make clear the idea that old white guys tend to flock to this idea not because it benefits old white guys, but for some other reason. I don't think it helps the cause of this site, in courting the general interest, that all the writers are old white guys.
If someone is going to support, or not support, an idea based on the skin colour of those who expound it, I couldn't care less what he or she thinks.
Josh:I suppose you could argue that it is merely a coincedence, but most people would probably not see it as a coincidence.
I dont see it as a coincidence. And the fact that it isnt a coincidence, isnt a bad thing!
Its not a coincidence Blacks are over represented in football and basketball, or that Asians are overrepresented in mathematics. Nor is it a bad thing. Why should it be a coincidence that whites are overrepresented in spreading liberty? Why did capitalism develop where it did? Why did communism develop where it did? (Im living in China now, btw). Race isn't the sole reason, of course, but to deny differences between races is foolish.
Josh:It is, to my mind, the great innovation and truth of Austrain theory that economic reality is conditioned and set by the subjective considerations of freely acting individuals. I guess my point is that a freely acting individual, seeing a site full of free market supporting white males, might surmise that these people have some motivation other than "liberty" to support the free market. I think if you ignore this reality you are either underserving the goal of spreading liberty, or you are acrtively ignoring the realities of human psychology.
If someone bases their ideas on things such as this, then they're most likely brainwashed statists who have long since passed the point of no return.
Sukrit Sabhlok: P.S. The moderators on this site are hyper-sensitive about anyone criticizing Austro-libertarian authors or the LvMI, even if they're polite. Strangely, their dogmatism isn't shared by some of the leading Austrian thinkers. You get used to it - don't let it put you off the ideas.
If the idea of revolution here is essentially through information, then proficient marketing is required. How can one successfully sell an idea to the public if their pitch is lousy?
Seph: If someone bases their ideas on things such as this, then they're most likely brainwashed statists who have long since passed the point of no return.
It sounds like something Cornell West would say.
I'm willing to accept your assertions, generally, Sukrith Sabhlok. I'm not sure I buy the idea that libertarian thinkers are objectively more advanced or diverse in their ability to think (i.e. thinking outside the box). I certainly would assume this is a generalization that you assume but do not have adequate support for. I'm not particularly interested in arguing this point though. I definitely believe the argument that The West (probably best understood as the U.S., at least in today's politcal climate) has a tradition of skepticism of central power. I see how this follows that white males are the predominant group which carries on this heritage. But I still see it as a potential and future detriment to the strength of the cause. Ideological precepts, such as the idea that more free market principles benifit the less priveleged and, necessarily in this country, the minority races, will still lead to the conclusion that the winners in the capitalist system is white males. So if economic incentives are to be respected as legitimate, we must consider the idea that white males may have an interest in preserving their dominance in our economy. I think it would be dishonest to ignore this heritage of our country, even if you argue that free market principles lead to greater racial equality. Thus I generally perceive it as a weakness of this website that its principle contributors are old white men. I sincerely do NOT care what their intentions are, this is in some sense a PR weakness. When I say that the writers here appear 'douchey', I am in some sense trying to be comical, and in another sense trying to represent the general idea of the self-interested wealthy white male. I think if these people (self interested white males) are simultaneously unwilling to accept social stereotypes about them while trying to perpetuate their ideals (classical liberalism), they are pursuing a somewhat deficient course, at least if the goal is to convert people to the classical liberal view.
So is your point that Libertarians can't think outside the box because they're not willing to make a compromise toward affirmative action PR stunts? Who do you think this would impress? CNN?
Unfortunately I'm still not sure how to do the quote function. But I am responding to Steph's comments. I guess my point is that it might be benficial for this site to expound upond the nonrelation between race/economic station and political view. Of course, historically, it is not coincidental that certain races have come to be dominant in certain areas. I suppose my primary point is that most proponents of Austrian/libertarian theory believe in such theory because it is rooted in individual freedom, not because it preserves the status quo of white males on top of the earnings picture. I don't think this is an inconsequential point to make (that white males have had inappropriate power), even among discerning, intelligent thinkers. Such people could easily conclude that the history of market interactions has favored white males and thus this would be a powerful incentive to preserve it. I am not suggesting that austro-libertarianism is motivated by preserving this social construct, but i also DO NOT believe it is legitimate to ignore the reality that austro-libertarian ideas seem to be advocated and written about by white males.
since this is a small think tank, the top contributors are professors. And most professors who "profess" (or write on political, economic subjects) are old white men, common dude.
do we get free cheezeburger in socielism?
Josh:I suppose my primary point is that most proponents of Austrian/libertarian theory believe in such theory because it is rooted in individual freedom, not because it preserves the status quo of white males on top of the earnings picture. I don't think this is an inconsequential point to make (that white males have had inappropriate power), even among discerning, intelligent thinkers. Such people could easily conclude that the history of market interactions has favored white males and thus this would be a powerful incentive to preserve it. I am not suggesting that austro-libertarianism is motivated by preserving this social construct, but i also DO NOT believe it is legitimate to ignore the reality that austro-libertarian ideas seem to be advocated and written about by white males.
So just to be clear, you're advocating this on behalf of a hypothetical person, who might be negatively influenced towards anarcho-capitalist theory because of the over representation of white males who advocate it?
If thats the case and Im not misrepresenting you, then I'd say, in a similar vein of what I've already said, that a person who discounts theories not on the basis of their merit, but on the colour, age and gender of their proponents, is unlikely to be persuaded by logic of any kind....
I don't care. And I don't know why anyone would other than PC hysteria. Economics and philosophy are generally dominated by a preponderance of older white men.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Josh: Does it concern anyone here that all the contributors to this site seem to be old, white, vageuly douchey looking males? I'm honestly not offering a criticism, merely an observation. It is curious to me that the goals of libertarianism seem to be exclusively or predominately extolled among white males (or at least white people). Is this assumed merely to be a coincedence? Or perhaps a result of historical heritage? I am sincerely curious to know the opinion of people on this site. For my part I am a white male, and I find the Austrain and libertarian arguments to be persuasive. But i also find it possibly disconscerting that everyone who shares my opinion seems also to be white and, often, male.
What's not to understand? You start out as an inquisitive young white guy who has read up on classical liberalism fairly extensively but who is still naive enough to ignore or simply gloss over certain key elements and conclusions regarding methodological individualism, to the point that you are self- persuaded and convinced to believe that you can free others to your own standards of freedom via a combination of "here, read/watch this" and overt political action [i.e voting for the "right" candidate]......then continue on this path for many years like countless other world changers and "bringers of freedom" before you, never noticing that the rest of the world pretty much stays the same/goes its own way , and that every one [with a few other naive exceptions] pretty much ignores you and your agenda, and does not embrace your version of what their freedom for them should be, regardless of how you label it [e.g Libertarianism,"true" conservatism, paleo-conservatism, classical liberalism, radicalism, constitutionalism, anarcho-capitalism or whatever.]You end up as a [still] naive old white guy who has thoroughly absorbed much of what you learnt from the naive old white guys when you were a naive young white guy [ i.e. still excluding /glossing over certain key elements and conclusions regarding methodological individualism], but who is nevertheless very skilled at writing/ expounding/arguing /parroting about "freedom for everyone" according to your version of what that "freedom" should mean for them according to what you subjectively interpret it to mean -based mostly on all that stuff you read by old white guys when you were still a . young white guy! As an old white guy, your market for your time- honed skill? Of course, the one you know best- mostly, naive young white guys - tomorrows naive old white guys!And so it goes
For more information about onebornfree, please see profile.[ i.e. click on forum name "onebornfree"].
Josh: i thought you were joking about moving my topic to the graveyard, but it seems not. I hoped for a more refined sense of humor on this board, but I guess that was optimistic.
You make a broad generalization based on extreme ignorance, and then claim it was an attempt at humour. Be funny on your own time, this forum isn't here to facilitate your joking at the expense of the contributors to the institute.
Sukrit Sabhlok:P.S. The moderators on this site are hyper-sensitive about anyone criticizing Austro-libertarian authors or the LvMI, even if they're polite. Strangely, their dogmatism isn't shared by some of the leading Austrian thinkers. You get used to it - don't let it put you off the ideas.
You post a thread that promotes an unfounded assertion about a member of the Institute, on the Institute's own website. It was sloppy intellectually and showed a lack of respect for the opportunity to originate your own discussions on someone elses dime. You don't know us, or how many times some of us have taken a strip out of the hide of a LvMI contributor. You're speaking from extreme ignorance once again. Don't make claims about other people you can't back up. One would have thought you learned that lesson from your ignorant Hoppe thread.
As an austrian or libertarian, surely you understand the conception of property rights, and your rights here, are contingent upon the good graces of the site owners, and their proxies.
If you don't like the moderation here, or you don't like that I in particularly am not going to let you post things like "Professor X is a racist and a Homophobe" without substantiated proof, then maybe this community isn't for you. You can post that stuff to your heart's content. On your own dime.
Josh:I hoped for a more refined sense of humor on this board, but I guess that was optimistic.
Is "douchey" really your idea of "refined"?
Josh: I should also add that my criticism, which has racial and qualitatively subjective (douchey?) undertones, is important, at least in my mind. If the goal is to spread the cause, within the nation (USA) or globally, i think it is relevant to at least address the idea that most of the contributors to this site are white males. I suppose my comment that they [contributors] look vaguely "douchey" is unfair, given that i don't know these people. But I still think it is important to conisder what the general public might surmise from frequenting this site. I don't think it is insignificant that most of the contributors are white males, at least in a purley emotional, socially conscious sense. And I think it is a great lesson of the Austrian school that actions are motivated by emotional drivers. I would have hoped that the interest of free exchange of ideas would predominate on this forum, but I see that moderators have a different ideal of what is free to be discussed.
Josh,
I have no problem with the topic; it's potentially fruitful. I have a problem with sophomoric insults ("douchey") being flung at the scholars associated with LvMI. If you held a large party in your house, and I swaggered in and called you a douchebag in front of all your guests, it would be perfectly appropriate for you to have me escorted out. This is, in essence, no different.
Lilburne: If you held a large party in your house, and I swaggered in and called you a douchebag in front of all your guests, it would be perfectly appropriate for you to have me escorted out. This is, in essence, no different.
If you held a large party in your house, and I swaggered in and called you a douchebag in front of all your guests, it would be perfectly appropriate for you to have me escorted out. This is, in essence, no different.
For that reason alone it would be stupid. What would he have to gain from a serious business attitude? He would be demonstrating a lack of social intelligence; consequently, painting a target on his back for trolls who thrive off of people with said attitude.
Capital Pumper, it's not a "serious business attitude" to prefer not to have someone who insults and embarrasses you in front of others in your house.
As for "painting a target on his back for trolls", do you really think a number of people would say, "Hey, he told the guy who embarrassed him in front of his guests to leave; let's go hassle him."? If you do, then you must be in some rather loutish social circles.