A challenge to all statists- can you give a rights based, or non-utilitarian, justification for the state?
The atoms tell the atoms so, for I never was or will but atoms forevermore be.
Yours sincerely,
Physiocrat
Sure can: Men are beings of volition and volition implies free will and the freedom required to use one's volition. As such, freedom is desirable because it follows human nature.
Yan Grenier: Sure can: Men are beings of volition and volition implies free will and the freedom required to use one's volition. As such, freedom is desirable because it follows human nature.
How is this a justification for the state? Sounds like a justification for freedom. How does the state, an institution that must inherently violate freedom on a fundamental level in order to exist and maintain its existance, logically follow from justifying freedom?
Yan Grenier:Sure can: Men are beings of volition and volition implies free will and the freedom required to use one's volition. As such, freedom is desirable because it follows human nature.
OK, now that we've identified that erroneous assumption, examine mainstream Psychology and Sociology to see why that assumption is absurd.
Simply reading an introductory textbook for either course will do. Since Mises himself said Psychology and Sociology were legitimate fields, you should not have any difficulty with this.
Freedom is desirable because it stems from human nature (and I'm a human, so I want freedom). It does not follow from human nature, however, that strictly the marginal establishment of freedom establishes individual freedom overall.
Brainpolice: Yan Grenier: Sure can: Men are beings of volition and volition implies free will and the freedom required to use one's volition. As such, freedom is desirable because it follows human nature. How is this a justification for the state? Sounds like a justification for freedom. How does the state, an institution that must inherently violate freedom on a fundamental level in order to exist and maintain its existance, logically follow from justifying freedom?
The government inherently violates freedom marginally -- whether that leads to greater freedom overall in the form of opportunities has not been established by Austrian economics, though it has been utterly ripped to pieces by Keynesianism.
"Austrian economics and freedom are not synonymous." -JAlanKatz
I was answering to Nathyn, not the topic.
Nathyn: Yan Grenier: Sure can: Men are beings of volition and volition implies free will and the freedom required to use one's volition. As such, freedom is desirable because it follows human nature. OK, now that we've identified that erroneous assumption, examine mainstream Psychology and Sociology to see why that assumption is absurd. Simply reading an introductory textbook for either course will do. Since Mises himself said Psychology and Sociology were legitimate fields, you should not have any difficulty with this. Freedom is desirable because it stems from human nature (and I'm a human, so I want freedom). It does not follow from human nature, however, that strictly the marginal establishment of freedom establishes individual freedom overall. [...] The government inherently violates freedom marginally -- whether that leads to greater freedom overall in the form of opportunities has not been established by Austrian economics, though it has been utterly ripped to pieces by Keynesianism.
[...]
I'll go by points:
1st: You clearly are splitting hair here. I'll rephrase what I wrote: Men require, by their very nature, freedom. The desire for freedom exists because it is the logical requirement of human nature.
Moreover, given your understanding of Mises' writings on Fascism, it does not surprise me that you had issues with what I wrote in the first place. You simply find what you want in any sentence that is written, even if you have to avoid every single word in said sentence. If you can derive that Mises was favorable to fascism, you can probably derive anything from any sentence at all.
2nd: I would recommend strongly that you don't call my assumption as erroneous before providing evidence or at the very least a logical examination leading to this conclusion. What do you got on me again? Books on psychology? Can you at least quote one that is not out of wikipedia?Are those introduction classes books or the real stuff (everyone knows though that Nathyn can understand the full scope of a domain of knowledge by taking an introduction class- I concede that he is that good).
3rd: You and I probably only have in common that we have very little formal economics classes under our belt. Still, when I read "To clarify: This no longer is the case after finishing Introduction to Macroeconomics and buying an college-level econ textbook", I can't help but wonder on what basis you can justify your arrogance outside this single introduction class and a college-level textbook.
I came here to find answers to questions and better sources to read as well as discussing how economics can be understood to improve people's freedom and choices. Yes, I do read A LOT (on average 500 pages/week or more) on economics alone. On the other hand, I highly doubt you are here for any other reason but to bait the users of this board into argumentation traps. When users like Inquisitor tell you that you are wrong, it should be a red light to someone like you and I that got no real formal learning that something is going on. That is why I came here in the first place really: It was my chance to meet people who studied economics for real. As far as I am concerned, you are diluting any potential quality this board has to offer. I cannot even begin to fathom the wide array of what has been lost in terms of intellectual reasoning ever since you began posting here. Your banning from the other forum was well met, yours here will be as well.
In the end, you bent the meaning of what I wrote to fit what you needed to understand in order to build another attack on Austrian Econ and freedom in general. You did it with Mises, Rothbard and probably every single author whose premises you do not like.
Lastly: Who are your econ teachers?
EDIT: You obviously are here for legitimate reasons: http://www.politicalcrossfire.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=96503
though it has been utterly ripped to pieces by Keynesianism.
It has? Explain concisely.
Physiocrat:A challenge to all statists- can you give a rights based, or non-utilitarian, justification for the state?
No, but I can't give a rights based or non-utilitatirian justification for an oak tree either. It just exists, it's not a matter of whether I like it or not. It's there. The same goes for the state. It is not some outre force that has imposed itself on mankind. It is a manifestation of some desire within the human mind to use force and impose a top down order on society. It no more needs justification than an oak tree. Of course if the oak tree falls on your house you may not feel that way, but it's just the way the cookie crumbled.
xahrx:No, but I can't give a rights based or non-utilitatirian justification for an oak tree either. It just exists, it's not a matter of whether I like it or not. It's there. The same goes for the state. It is not some outre force that has imposed itself on mankind. It is a manifestation of some desire within the human mind to use force and impose a top down order on society. It no more needs justification than an oak tree. Of course if the oak tree falls on your house you may not feel that way, but it's just the way the cookie crumbled.
I agree with the first five sentences, but not the sixth. The state, as I see it, exists because the cost to collect taxes (which is directly influenced by how willing people are to part with their money in order to be free from state violence) is lower than the amount of taxes collected (i.e., income exceeds expenses). The desire for top-down order certain makes people more willing to pay taxes, though. As long as this opportunity of political "entrepreneurship" exists, I believe the state will exist.
What to do (and what can be done) about it is the real question.
Nathyn: It does not follow from human nature, however, that strictly the marginal establishment of freedom establishes individual freedom overall.
Nathyn: The government inherently violates freedom marginally -- whether that leads to greater freedom overall in the form of opportunities has not been established by Austrian economics, though it has been utterly ripped to pieces by Keynesianism.