Well, the standard I use is whether I feel like my education has enabled me to pursue my long term objectives in a way that I probably wouldn've have been able to myself. I mean, in the absence of state funding of education, it's possible that private universities would make education better, and so my standard is unfairly low. But at the same time, state funding likely results in much greater incentive for smart people to become professors instead of something else, and allows for higher concentrations of the best professors in particular places (I haven't counted, but I'd guess that most of the top philosophy programs are public). So it's very possible that at the University of Wisconsin, I'm able to get an education in philosophy that simply wouldn't exist without state funding, which would make my standard unfairly high.
As for what economics is taught in public schools, I'd point out that it's the same as the economics that's taught in private schools. It's not Austrian economics, for sure; the Austrian research program doesn't focus on developing the tools that most economists use in their professional pursuits. But the fact that universities focus on paradigms which facilitate predictions and measurements doesn't say anything about the universities, I don't think. Rather, it speaks more to the kind of economist that's demanded in today's marketplace. Most organizations looking to employ economists simply aren't interested in the social scientific issues which concern most Austrians. If universities were training economics students for lives in acadamia, and not giving them the tools that are demanded by other employers, I think they'd be doing their students a profound disservice. I would point out, though, that 90% of economics professors are most certainly not keynesian social democrat fascists. Perhaps your "etc." captures "Monetarist," "Neoclassical," "Chicago School" and "Public Choice," but if it does, then I don't see the problem. I'd suggest that you stop parroting what you've heard others say about different schools of economic thought if you haven't actually looked into the work that non-Austrian economists do.
As for the issue of whether the majority of teachers are libertarians, I honestly don't see how it matters unless they're teaching courses related to political theory. If you were talking about economics, then most economics professors would tell you that their subject matter certainly presupposes certain market structures, allotments of rights, and institutional arrangements. But because those presuppositions are made to reflect the actual state of the world, their students are likely not being significantly misled. That's especially true of students at the graduate level, where the foundations of economic theory are examined more closely as part of the program. To be honest, I'd say that if there's a bias anywhere, it's in favor of controversial libertarian views; a disproportionate number of economists are libertarians themselves.
But if you were talking about philosophy professors, then I'd say you're wrong if you think that a non-libertarian philosopher is somehow incompetent or doesn't understand what libertarianism is. The reality is that the libertarian viewpoint is controversial for a lot of very good reasons, and with its current level of development, there's no good way to tell a non-libertarian philosopher that her views are obviously wrong because of libertarian ideas. The libertarian paradigm is simply not equipped for that kind of battle. My non-libertarian professors have read Nozick, Locke, and Mill. There are just a lot of questions that need to be answered before libertarianism can be considered a mature, coherent position. I come down on the side of optimism; I wouldn't blame someone for going the other way though.
Donny, when you say "There are just a lot of questions that need to be answered before libertarianism can be considered a mature, coherent position," what do you mean? Could you expand some here? Coherent compared to what? Libertarianism is not "new" by any means and classical liberalism in general has a deep, rich intellectual history.Also, I would agree with you that there is a lot of blind hatred of academics in the libertarian movement, to the point where many libertarians can't even imagine that there are worthwhile, intelligent people within the university system. But you seem to be quite a bit over-optimistic in your praise in regards to this subject. Could there perhaps be a bit of situational bias tinting your view of your current surroundings?
If you believe, as I do, that ideas rule the world, then you can not deny that much of what comes out of modern academia is complete drivel at best, and blood-soaked nonsense at worst. Much, if not all, of the evil transpired in the world today is rationalized or legitimized by academics and intellectuals of one color or another.
Donny with an A:The reality is that the libertarian viewpoint is controversial for a lot of very good reasons, and with its current level of development, there's no good way to tell a non-libertarian philosopher that her views are obviously wrong because of libertarian ideas. The libertarian paradigm is simply not equipped for that kind of battle. My non-libertarian professors have read Nozick, Locke, and Mill. There are just a lot of questions that need to be answered before libertarianism can be considered a mature, coherent position. I come down on the side of optimism; I wouldn't blame someone for going the other way though.
Well, libertarianism is primarily an emergent phenomenon. Most of the libertarian political movement likely arose from the exceptional success of the libertarian ethic in normal, every-day relationships and interactions. I don't mean to insult your chosen profession (though I will anyway), but I don't think its very common for successful ethical system to be dreamed up by philosophers alone (has that ever occurred?). The limits of human reason are such that I think any successful ethic is going to be a combination of philosophizing and more emergent evolution.
I know it won't make philosophers like it, but I think libertarianism's lack of "coherent-ness" is as much of a strength as a weakness. Any time one person can describe a means of organizing society which he himself understands in full, you can surely bet that it would be a terrific disaster.
Donny with an A:I'd suggest that you stop parroting what you've heard others say about different schools of economic thought if you haven't actually looked into the work that non-Austrian economists do.
I think this bears repeating... The public choice school effectively occupies the other half of the argument against government intervention. The Austrian school explains why government cannot manage the economy well because of lack of information, while the public choice school explains why government doesn't even have the incentives to govern well at all.
In addition, many of the mainstream critiques of market performance aren't wrong-headed. Markets do suffer from imperfections, and under libertarianism, its up to entrepreneurs to correct those imperfections. But you can't do that unless you acknowledge them first; sticking one's head in the sand doesn't help.
Donny with an A:My non-libertarian professors have read Nozick, Locke, and Mill.
Not exactly our most sterling spokesmen. If that is all your professors have read, then they haven't even put a dent in the tip of the iceberg.
Donny with an A:There are just a lot of questions that need to be answered before libertarianism can be considered a mature, coherent position.
Perhaps they should read more than Nozick, Locke, and Mill. There is a vast libertarian literature on myriad issues, probably more than any one person could read in a lifetime.
Donny with an A:I'd say you're wrong if you think that a non-libertarian philosopher is somehow incompetent or doesn't understand what libertarianism is.
Most of the ones I have met don't understand it. That's not to say that the're incompetent necessarily.
Donny with an A:Well, the standard I use is whether I feel like my education has enabled me to pursue my long term objectives in a way that I probably wouldn've have been able to myself. I mean, in the absence of state funding of education, it's possible that private universities would make education better, and so my standard is unfairly low. But at the same time, state funding likely results in much greater incentive for smart people to become professors instead of something else, and allows for higher concentrations of the best professors in particular places (I haven't counted, but I'd guess that most of the top philosophy programs are public). So it's very possible that at the University of Wisconsin, I'm able to get an education in philosophy that simply wouldn't exist without state funding, which would make my standard unfairly high.
So I take it you are a cosnequentialist or a utilitarian rather than a natural rights libertarian. These are all primarily consequentialist reasons I see you giving for state-run public education. They seem to be primarily what you think would benefit you the most, or what you think would benefit society the most. Should your preferences be imposed on others? Would it really be such a bad thing if most of the people who teach and do philosophy (and any number of other social science/humanities disciplines) couldn't find a job in this field on a free market? A lot of it is drivel anyway. Is the current estimation of what counts as a "top philosophy program" really all it's cracked up to be? Might it not be a product of our current statist-bureaucratic-corporatist society, one we would be better off without? Should we be forced to subsidize your education in one of these "top programs" that we consider to be highly overrated?
Yours in liberty,Geoffrey Allan Plauché, Ph.D.Adjunct Instructor, Buena Vista UniversityWebmaster, LibertarianStandard.comFounder / Executive Editor, Prometheusreview.com
Donny: I'd suggest that you stop parroting what you've heard others say about different schools of economic thought if you haven't actually looked into the work that non-Austrian economists do.
Grant: I think this bears repeating... The public choice school effectively occupies the other half of the argument against government intervention.
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
Juan:Well, the whole body of classical liberal doctrine is an argument against government.
Classical liberalism also isn't a science. Economics tries to be one, even if it fails sometimes.
Also, I don't see where Danny has supported public education in his posts.
Donny: Well sure, it[the state] can provide quality education. I'd seriously doubt that it provides it efficiently, but as far as the product itself goes, I'm pretty satisfied.
Donny: Actually, I haven't read Gatto's work. But I was talking about university level education when I said I thought the state was doing a pretty good job;
Donny: Again, the claim that a university education is useful and of high quality doesn't imply anything about whether it should be publicly provided
Donny: But at the same time, state funding likely results in much greater incentive for smart people to become professors instead of something else, and allows for higher concentrations of the best professors in particular places (I haven't counted, but I'd guess that most of the top philosophy programs are public).
Grant:Any time one person can describe a means of organizing society which he himself understands in full, you can surely bet that it would be a terrific disaster.
This line of reasoning indicts your own position. Who is it that assumes they can fully comprehend the market and determine what needs to be produced and consumed? It's the socialist. It is the socialist that has this 'fatal vision' (see Thomas Sowell). The socialists are the social engineers, engineering 'terrific disasters."
F. A. Hayek, “The Use of Knowledge in Society” http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=92&layout=html :
"The peculiar character of the problem of a rational economic order is determined precisely by the fact that the knowledge of the circumstances of which we must make use never exists in concentrated or integrated form but solely as the dispersed bits of incomplete and frequently contradictory knowledge which all the separate individuals possess. The economic problem of society is thus not merely a problem of how to allocate “given” resources—if “given” is taken to mean given to a single mind which deliberately solves the problem set by these “data.” It is rather a problem of how to secure the best use of resources known to any of the members of society, for ends whose relative importance only these individuals know. Or, to put it briefly, it is a problem of the utilization of knowledge which is not given to anyone in its totality."
-end quote
Talented persons existing within imperfect systems means very little. Also. it quite anecdotal. Your sample is of one that is biased toward the socialist system. These talented professors are beneficiaries of the philosophy you're espousing AT THE EXPENSE OF the severally coerced. It's like committing armed robbery and then proving the good of it by showing how it benefited the robber.
Good genetics can thrive in adverse environments, but even bad genetics can thrive in favorable ones.
"The best way to bail out the economy is with liberty, not with federal reserve notes." - pairunoyd
"The vision of the Austrian must be greater than the blindness of the sheeple." - pairunoyd
Donny with an A: But at the same time, state funding likely results in much greater incentive for smart people to become professors instead of something else, and allows for higher concentrations of the best professors in particular places (I haven't counted, but I'd guess that most of the top philosophy programs are public). So it's very possible that at the University of Wisconsin, I'm able to get an education in philosophy that simply wouldn't exist without state funding, which would make my standard unfairly high.
Juan:So public education is fine, although perhaps a bit expensive.
I don't see any claims of the desirability of state education there, just comments on its result to the consumer (student). I don't doubt that the state can, in theory, produce good education. I think it will tend not to, but mostly tend to produce extremely inefficient education because it cannot economize.
pairunoyd:This line of reasoning indicts your own position.
Yes, I know, I've read Hayek...
Sheesh...okay, I'll start from the top.
Jimbojr, libertarianism is certainly rooted in classical liberalism, but most of its competitors within the world of political philosophy are also rooted in liberalism. The contractualist movement which has probably played the biggest role in recent academic discussion was set into motion by John Rawls, who was unquestionably a liberal himself. Even egalitarianism and socialism find their roots in the liberal tradition; they just come down in different places on certain issues. What's important to see is that liberalism is about freedom. Socialists and egalitarians believe that freedom is fostered by certain institutions and patterns which prevent unjust inequality, exploitation, wage slavery, and alienation. Contractualist liberals also believe that freedom is critically important, but believe that certain limits on freedom make sense and are just in the name of fostering a society that's better than the state of nature. Libertarians focus on freedom as well, but tend to feel like less limitation is more desirable, either because of people's natural right to not be interfered with when they aren't harming anyone, or because a very broad freedom would bring about the best kind of society.
Questions facing libertarians span over a wide range of issues, including abortion and children's rights, the justice of doing what is necessary to survive, the proper reaction to conflict and rights infringements, the nature and stringency of property rights, justice in appropriation and dispossession, the nature of the right to self defense, the justice of paternalistic restraint, the justification (if any) for a state or state-like entity, whether there is really no just way to provide for those in critical need through coercion of any form, whether a social order with no state-like governance would produce better results, the rights of future generations, the rights of dead people, the justice of harming animals, etc. (The list surely goes much longer, but you get the point). I don't mean to suggest that libertarians can't provide answers to these questions, but I will say that those answers aren't generally decisive, and people who disagree often have good reasons for their views.
Grant, I don't pretend that social changes can be orchestrated by academics. The role of the professional philosopher is to explore the ideas that people are relying on, in order to see what kinds of implications they have, and whether there are other views which are equally or more plausible. The average libertarian certainly won't read everything that academics write about the things that matter to her. But I think it's important that as people start looking for a new way to organize society, there should be an attempt to understand the nature of the ideas that underpin the changes. If there are serious problems, or areas in need of work, it's likely that philosophers would be among the best suited for untangling them coherently (just look at the messy and ad hoc evolution of the common law in comparison to the course of philosophical discourse).
You make an interesting point when you say that libertarianism might be aided by its vagueness. But I think that's true from a rhetorical standpoint only. The "sustainable" movement also relies on vague foundations, and that has helped it survive through changes in message, direction, and focus. But just like people who advocate "sustainable practices" don't actually understand the nature of what they're talking about (because they're not actually talking about anything in particular), it's not very comforting to think that libertarians are relying on vague half-notions rather than a coherent philosophical paradigm. Maybe that's just the academic in me talking, but if libertarianism can't actually be spelled out without destroying it, then I don't want to be a libertarian.
Geoffery, at no point did I, in this entire thread, say that the state should run education. I said that the fact that my education was paid for in part by the government doesn't entail that it is of low quality, and in fact, state funding could potentially have made it a lot better than it would have otherwise been. The former is a normative statement, while the latter is a positive one. I really don't see what's so difficult about the distinction. Take this illustration: America's air force has some really great fighter jets. In the absence of public funding, there probably wouldn't be as many fighter jets of the level of sophistication as those currently populating USAF hangers around the world. So if you wanted to fly a really great fighter jet, and the Air Force was willing to let you fly one of theirs, you'd probably get to fly a better fighter jet than you ever would have been able to in the absence of government funding. And it's probably also true that more people would get to fly fighter jets given Air Force subsidization than would ever have been able to otherwise. That doesn't mean that it's a good thing that the Air Force has a whole lot of fighter jets, or that it steals money from people to pay for them. It just means that if you wanted to fly a really great fighter jet, government subsidy wouldn't likely result in you flying a worse fighter jet. Okay?
As for the rest of your post, I'm really not sure how to respond. I was referring to Locke, Mill, and Nozick as being the most basic proponents of libertarian ideas, who almost everyone has read and studied. I'm not sure exactly who these more "sterling" proponents are, but I really hope you don't say Mises, Rothbard, Hayek, Block, Hoppe, etc. It would really hurt me inside.
Juan, if you honestly think that Austrian economics is limited to people from Austria, then I'm really just not sure what to say to you. And if you really believe that classical liberalism was aimed at disputing the justice of government in general, then you'd better get back to those books.
As for the posts you referenced in support of your assertion that I've been defending government provision of education... Compare the first quotation to the following statement: "Sure, Army-trained Green Berets are good killers. Perhaps a private company could have trained them more cheaply, but the soldiers themselves still perform the job that's asked of them pretty well." Compare the second quotation to the following statement: "I'm not sure that regular army training produces very good soldiers; it seems like other methods could produce much better results. However, I do think that the Green Berets are very well trained." Compare the third quotation to the following statement: "The statement that Green Berets are well trained doesn't imply that we ought to be training Green Berets, or that the state ought to be paying for it." Compare the fourth quotation to the following statement: "The fact that the army offers funding for Green Beret training and employment probably leads a lot more people to decide to become Green Berets than there would have otherwise been, and once they're trained, state funding of jobs for Green Berets as soldiers likely brings about the consequence that Green Beret-caliber soldiers are concentrated in certain places, rather than spread out more evenly among security companies and the like. Accordingly, it might be possible that there are individual squads of soldiers that are better in a state-funded scenario than there would be anywhere in a purely private scenario." How does any of that reflect me holding an opinion that Green Berets should be trained by the state, and that it's perfectly acceptable that the state tax people to do that?
Libertarian, the state doesn't hire individual professors. Universities and philosophy departments do. If you're going to talk about what would happen if the government didn't interfere, I'd suggest that you look into what does happen now that the government does. I assure you that it results in a lot more philosophers being employed, and much higher wages than would prevail if the same number of philosophers were competing for purely private funds.
Grant: I don't see any claims of the desirability of state education there
Donny with an A: If there are serious problems, or areas in need of work, it's likely that philosophers would be among the best suited for untangling them coherently (just look at the messy and ad hoc evolution of the common law in comparison to the course of philosophical discourse).
Donny with an A:America's air force has some really great fighter jets. In the absence of public funding, there probably wouldn't be as many fighter jets of the level of sophistication as those currently populating USAF hangers around the world.
Donny with an A: the state doesn't hire individual professors. Universities and philosophy departments do.
Donny with an A:I assure you that it results in a lot more philosophers being employed, and much higher wages than would prevail if the same number of philosophers were competing for purely private funds.
Donny: And if you really believe that classical liberalism was aimed at disputing the justice of government in general, then you'd better get back to those books.
I'm not certain that I am entering into this intercourse properly, but here goes: Just joined the Forum. Have considered myself to be libertarian for years. I'm impressed at the level of knowledge that I see here. But, I fear that anything that I might post will be summarily dismissed because I have one of those "Damned Ph D's". Though I will watch the Forum and learn from it, I will nessessarily have to feel as an outsider, because I am a PhD. I've never seen such villification of one characteristic as I've seen here against education, however inconsequential as it seems to be , on this topic. I suspect that as of now, with my first strong statements, that I will be clearly personna non grata. What I've seen so far reminds me of Moscow in, say, 1918. "DAMN THE INTELECTUALS!! They must be by education alone, enemy's of the movement.!" Sorry to enter this community in this self destructive way. It was simply my first impression.
Stan
Donny with an A:You make an interesting point when you say that libertarianism might be aided by its vagueness. But I think that's true from a rhetorical standpoint only. The "sustainable" movement also relies on vague foundations, and that has helped it survive through changes in message, direction, and focus. But just like people who advocate "sustainable practices" don't actually understand the nature of what they're talking about (because they're not actually talking about anything in particular), it's not very comforting to think that libertarians are relying on vague half-notions rather than a coherent philosophical paradigm. Maybe that's just the academic in me talking, but if libertarianism can't actually be spelled out without destroying it, then I don't want to be a libertarian.
I didn't mean that vagueness was an aid in spreading libertarianism, only that consistency and coherence doesn't necissarily make it more desirable to me. I believe libertarianism's strength is its fantastic success in the vast majority of personal interactions (at least in the West). I didn't mean that it can't be spelled out without destroying it (although I have my doubts that anyone will spell it out with enough success as to produce widespread agreement), but just that I'm glad its origins are emergent. If it were purely the product of academia, I'd be much more skeptical.
By the way, I also attended a state school. It was where I was accepted, and at the time I wasn't really thinking about how my tuition might be subsidized (I didn't take any scholarship money). Come to think of it, I'm not sure if it was or not.
Stan: I'm not certain that I am entering into this intercourse properly, but here goes: Just joined the Forum. Have considered myself to be libertarian for years. I'm impressed at the level of knowledge that I see here. But, I fear that anything that I might post will be summarily dismissed because I have one of those "Damned Ph D's". Though I will watch the Forum and learn from it, I will nessessarily have to feel as an outsider, because I am a PhD. I've never seen such villification of one characteristic as I've seen here against education, however inconsequential as it seems to be , on this topic. I suspect that as of now, with my first strong statements, that I will be clearly personna non grata. What I've seen so far reminds me of Moscow in, say, 1918. "DAMN THE INTELECTUALS!! They must be by education alone, enemy's of the movement.!" Sorry to enter this community in this self destructive way. It was simply my first impression. Stan
As you may have seen from my posts, I'm a pretty harsh critic of societies overeager acceptance of formalized education vs 'practical worth', but I personally welcome you to these boards. Congrats on attaining your PhD!
In what way is Mises deficient compared to Nozick, Mill and Locke (I'm willing to say Hayek and Rothbard were not; they excelled in other domains)? Granted he was not a political philosopher, but I really do not see how he can be found lacking or inferior in any way compared to any of them.
Libertarian, what makes you think that anyone can become a philosopher?
Stan, generally libertarians are critical of the view that holding a PHD renders one a good thinker. However, most prominent libertarians do have PHDs, and it is definitely not something to be held against you, far from it. I'm aiming for one myself later on in time.
Stan,
I myself will be earning a Ph.D. soon. We're not attacking all Ph.D.s just for havnig Ph.D.s, or any other level of college education. We're criticizing the legitimacy of state-run or supported public education. I also criticized the value of much of what the state supports. I think a lot of what passes for scholarship in the humanities and the social sciences in particular would not be highly valued on the market (or charity/donation-based education scheme) in the absence of Leviathan. (Take, for example, all the status quo statistical studies done in disciplines like political science.) I do happen to think that the obsession that some people have for official credentials is unhealthy and mistaken. It was only relatively recently in history, in large part due to state run or funded higher learning institutions that this obsession came about. Nowadays, if you don't have a Ph.D. in something you are treated as if your opinion is worthless, even if you happen to know more than most Ph.D.s do about a given subject.
Inquisitor:Libertarian, what makes you think that anyone can become a philosopher?
Well, you certainly don't need a Ph.D. in philosophy to be a good philosopher, but yes, not everyone is cut out for it.
Inquisitor:Stan, generally libertarians are critical of the view that holding a PHD renders one a good thinker. However, most prominent libertarians do have PHDs, and it is definitely not something to be held against you, far from it. I'm aiming for one myself later on in time.
I think in many cases (but not all) grad school corrupts and stunts the talent of individuals who otherwise could have been good thinkers (if they aren't ruined as undergraduates first). This is particularly the case in the social sciences and humanities (including philosophy departments).
Juan, I assure you that I don't support public provision of education. I'm not sure how I feel about the idea of vouchers (or redistribution in general), but there's something clearly unsettling about the state actually owning and operating educational institutions, and I'm not sure what benefit there is to direct government involvement (if there is any). As for my comments about libertarianism being incomplete, I'd caution against taking the point out of context. There's nothing wrong with incompleteness, and there's nothing wrong with being a proponent of an incomplete view. It just requires a little bit of humility, and patience with people who aren't quite as eager to get on board.
Regarding classical liberalism, I'm not sure where you get the idea that "...the whole body of classical liberal doctrine is an argument against government." I don't dispute that a large chunk of effort was devoted to examining the foundations of government, and to attempting to decide exactly what to think about government as an institution. But to say that the classical liberals rejected government seems like a perversion of history. Was Locke a classical liberal? Mill? To be certain, there were some classical liberals who rejected government. But their work could hardly be said to comprise "the whole body of classical liberal doctrine." If anything, theirs was a minority view.
Libertarian, it might be true that anyone can become a philosopher. But anyone can become a car repairman too. If I need someone to take a look at my car, I take it to a car repairman, because car repairmen know what to do with cars better than most people. And if I need someone to take a look at my philosophical doctrine, I take it to someone who's spent their adult life studying philosophical doctrines, because I'd bet that if someone could see it for what it was, it would be just such a person.
On your point about fighter jets, I'd suggest rereading the post where you got that quotation. I specifically addressed it. I'm not really sure how to respond to your claim that universities and philosophy departments make "the same errors" that "the state" would if it were hiring professors, because it just seems so obviously misguided that I can't figure out any reason that you would believe it. The only thing I can think of is that you're picturing a sad little philosopher going in front of the Soviet panel and trying to convince them that he deserves to be hired. There's no question that internal department politics play a role in determining who gets hired, fired, etc. But that isn't a public university phenomenon. In fact, it's not even a university phenomenon. Every employer demands that you prove your worth. If anything, the better funding available to most public schools' philosophy departments ensure that more different views can be represented without denying the most powerful figures the right to hire the candidates that they prefer. But because philosophers are constantly being judged publicly, there's an especially strong incentive to hire the best candidate.
I honestly can't even address your final claim, about philosophers not needing funding. Find me a philosopher, and I'll show you a philosopher who, at some point, either needed funding, or had sacrificed concentrating on philosophy at some point to do a job that wasn't as fulfilling in order to make some money.
Stan, welcome aboard. I hope to join you in Dr.-hood, so you won't be vilified by me.
Grant, I think that's fair.
Anthony, I don't think Mises was deficient, per se. I've read a whole bunch of his work, and he's influenced me immensely. But Mises was not a political philosopher by nature. He was quick to point out the consequences of certain social choices and institutions, but I wouldn't say that his contributions were particularly influential in political philosophy. Of course, that statement can only be taken as far as I've read. I actually haven't gotten through Human Action, which essentially means that I'm talking out of my behind, though I've read The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality, Theory and History, Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth, Economic Policy: Thoughts for Today and Tomorrow, Interventionism: An Economic Analysis. So maybe there's a whole body of work I'm just not familiar with. But as far as advancing the political philosophy of libertarianism, I just don't think of Mises when I think of the most important figures.
Geoffery, I'm really surprised to hear this quasi-anti-PhD sentiment from you. Didn't you say you were only a year away from obtaining yours? That would mean that you've spent nearly a decade studying the subject matter of your concentration, right? Did you not learn anything over the course of that decade? Could someone your age reasonably have achieved your level of expertise in your field any other way without a whole lot more effort? I assume you've participated and presented at various scholarly gatherings; your university didn't help you out with that at all? Your professors really haven't been helpful? If you really didn't think a PhD was valuable, then why would you voluntarily live in poverty for the last 5 years or so just to get the chance to work your tail off? I just don't get it. If, as I suspect, you really do think a PhD is immensely important, and sets you apart from your relatively uneducated peers, then what are you so ashamed about? Do you really not know more than these people (myself included)? Do you really feel like we all have valuable insights that you haven't heard before? Are we really all on the same level, and you've got nothing substantive to show for your effort? Give me a break.
Donny, I'll try and be brief. I don't see much need to respond to your second paragraph as it is just a list of subjects.
To the first paragraph –
I'm assuming when you say liberalism you mean modern day liberalism - social democrat/progressive. Liberalism in the past was what libertarianism is today but the word was adopted by undesirables so "classical" had to be attached. That's really not important though.
What strikes me in your descriptions of socialists, modern liberals, etc., is that you seem to be of the opinion that these are merely a bunch of positions of which libertarianism is just another equal "opinion." There is a key difference though - the use of force. All of the rest of those "philosophies" justify the use of force through some sort of state apparatus to bring about their own brand of "equality" or the "social good" or whatever vision may be running through the heads of intellectuals at the moment. But putting guns in people's faces in the name of your idea of "good" is not only philosophically and intellectually hollow, it is fucking evil my friend. There is no comparison.
I honestly don't want to divert this thread to a discussion of why libertarianism is incomplete. You might look through some of the posts on my blog, or you could start a separate topic if you wanted. But I think this conversation has at least stayed somewhat focused on formal education so far, and I'd really hate to be the one responsible for ruining that.
Donny with an A:Geoffery, I'm really surprised to hear this quasi-anti-PhD sentiment from you. Didn't you say you were only a year away from obtaining yours? That would mean that you've spent nearly a decade studying the subject matter of your concentration, right? Did you not learn anything over the course of that decade? Could someone your age reasonably have achieved your level of expertise in your field any other way without a whole lot more effort? I assume you've participated and presented at various scholarly gatherings; your university didn't help you out with that at all? Your professors really haven't been helpful? If you really didn't think a PhD was valuable, then why would you voluntarily live in poverty for the last 5 years or so just to get the chance to work your tail off? I just don't get it. If, as I suspect, you really do think a PhD is immensely important, and sets you apart from your relatively uneducated peers, then what are you so ashamed about? Do you really not know more than these people (myself included)? Do you really feel like we all have valuable insights that you haven't heard before? Are we really all on the same level, and you've got nothing substantive to show for your effort? Give me a break.
You're completely missing the point I think. Perhaps intentionally?
"That would mean that you've spent nearly a decade studying the subject matter of your concentration, right? Did you not learn anything over the course of that decade?"
Nothing of great value that I couldn't have learned on my own, or from a mentor, or from a completely privatized education system.
"Could someone your age reasonably have achieved your level of expertise in your field any other way without a whole lot more effort?"
Huh?
"I assume you've participated and presented at various scholarly gatherings; your university didn't help you out with that at all?"
I think a grand total of $400 over the entire course of my graduate career. Woohoo! I'm swimming in the money!
I had a graduate assistantship for four years, but I had to work for the money: grading, making tests and quizzes, leading study sessions, lecturing occassionaly, helping with research, etc.
"Your professors really haven't been helpful?"
It varies. Professors in a completely privatized system wouldn't be helpful?
"If you really didn't think a PhD was valuable, then why would you voluntarily live in poverty for the last 5 years or so just to get the chance to work your tail off?"
I didn't say it wasn't valuable. We live in a culture that is obsessed with official state credentials, remember? The deck is stacked against me unless I have them. There will likely still be certification services in a completely privatized system, but that will probably just be for teaching. I doubt people would be as obsessed with official state credentials in such a system. They weren't a hundred years ago.
"If, as I suspect, you really do think a PhD is immensely important, and sets you apart from your relatively uneducated peers, then what are you so ashamed about?"
I never said I was ashamed about getting one. Now you're psychologizing and drifting into the realm of ad hominem. Be careful.
"Are we really all on the same level, and you've got nothing substantive to show for your effort? Give me a break."
Danny, I think Mises' importance lies in what tools he gave political philosophers to work with, i.e. his valuable insights on how markets function as part of society, and their cooperative and dynamic nature, something that is often bypassed when the word 'competition' enters the picture. Any good political philosopher must take reality into account, and the arguments Mises provided are necessary for any sound edifice. I won't say he was important as a political philosopher, because he wasn't one (although he was a multifaceted thinker) and because he is not too well known, but I think his importance for spreading the ideas of liberty exists in that regard. Arguably Hayek and Rothbard (and by extension, and to a lesser extent, Block and Hoppe; I see Rothbard as more of an activist and a system-builder in the realm of political ideas, more akin to Friedman or Rand than Mises) also provided such a foundation, but I don't think either did to the same extent that Mises did, and anyway both built off his work (further bolstering his significance.) So I think he deserves to be mentioned amongst the individuals you mentioned. Would it hurt you inside if I mentioned Rand by the way?
I am going to avoid labeling formalized education as "all good" or "all bad", then I am going to suggests some problems I see in avoiding any institutions and propose why I think how individuals (in the rhetorical sense ) define knowledge governs their view of the neccisty of institutionalized education.
A.If knowledge is the cognition of a priori abstractions or axioms then knowledge as an endeavor cannot be "granted" by institutions and can only be judged by the grasp of such intuitions or axioms (the most simplistic way I could think of portraying the anglo-analytic school of philosophy)
B.If knowledge is subjective (an anglo-analytic would deny that I am speaking of knowledge anymore) then essentially knowledge is the product of the institutions and power structure to which you belong. So "knowledge" would be essentially being able to rehash aspects of what your current power structure defines as "knowledge". Foccault outlines clear aspects of how subjective ideologies inherently change institutional interactions by examing how the treatment of the Mentally ill has varied widely in the 19th and 20th due to shifts in institutional ideological constructions. (this a simplification of what you might term as contiental philosophy)
So what do these epistemologies imply? epistemology "A" implies that no institutions would be neccesary to be knowledgable since such a priori cognitions can be realized independently. I suspect Mises realized the subjective nature of institutional knowledge and thus cognitively choose a apriori basis for knowledge rather than a empircal basis. What is interesting here is if you ascribe to epistemology A you can be knowledgeable and yet realize that some interaction with institutions are a neccisty due to the realities of the society you live in.
Epistemology B would require that you would have to have the institutional recognition of knowledge since by definition knowledge is governed by societal constructs, power structures, and institutions. This epistemology requires that you do not posses "knowledge" unless the context you exist in deems that you do. Contientalals generally deny apriori as not possible so this denies the possibility of "traditional" knowledge in their wolrd view.
Again, these are glaring simplifications and most philosophers in either school of anglo-analytic or contiental ascribe to varying degress of these simplified extremes. So here is where it really gets interesting, to what degree is "constructed" knowledge and abstract knowledge part of what we consider knowledge. For example, language is a institutional construct that is neccesary to carry out a discourse so the institutionalization of knowledge plays some role in discourse. I did not really have a point thought this might refocus the threads discussion taking place.
Geoffery, sorry if I misunderstood what you were saying. I was under the impression that you were suggesting that a PhD level education was irrelevant to whether you had a good opinion. I didn't realize that you meant a public-school-granted PhD. Plenty of private schools offer PhD programs, and would offer their equivalent if a private school system didn't recognize the term "PhD." If all you were saying is that people don't need a publicly delineated moniker to prove that they've gotten a good education, then I apologize for my earlier statements and I agree. I just thought you meant that people didn't need to get a PhD level education (whether private or otherwise), and if they didn't, their opinions wouldn't be any worse for it. I do wonder about whether someone could achieve a PhD level education on their own, though.
Anthony, I definitely agree that Mises was incredibly important to the libertarian movement. I guess I only included him on the list of people I wouldn't want to see mentioned as the best proponents of libertarianism because his ideas wouldn't really be decisive in arguing against people holding other ethical views. I didn't mean to suggest that he didn't do good work. But yes, it would hurt me inside if someone cited Rand as a "sterling" proponent of libertarianism, and the same goes for Molyneux, in spite of the fact that both have done a great deal for the libertarian movement in terms of getting people interested and engaged; I myself was introduced to philosophy after reading Atlas Shrugged. In a lot of ways, I think that people like Rothbard and Bastiat are valuable in a similar way; no one reads either and changes their mind about a deeply thought out position. Their arguments are often just too simple, and don't take adequate account of the reasons that people disagree. But for someone who hasn't developed a foundational disagreement with certain core libertarian ideas, they're fantastic examples of convincing rhetoric, and have likely been responsible for turning far more people on to libertarianism than a "better" philosopher like Nozick ever has (though Nozick was a fantastic writer as well). I almost cringe at the idea of hitting "post," because I just said that Nozick was a better philosopher than Rand, Molyneux, Rothbard, and Bastiat, and I'll probably be shouted down, but...well...he was.
History, in any sense relevant to a debate over the virtues of self-teaching as opposed to obtaining a formal education, why would any of that be important?
History, where did you come across the terms being used in such a fashion? I'm aware of what you're referring to, but it is not typically framed in such language.
Danny, I agree with you regarding Nozick.
Danny,
You don't think Mises's idea that all of what we know of as civilization is dependent upon voluntary cooperation is political philosophy? What I got from Human Action more than anything else is that Mises believed socialism was the polar opposite of civilization. He tried to show that there isn't a choice between complete socialism and capitalism, unless one considers suicide a choice.
He and Hayek pretty much crushed an entire world of thought concerning the role of politics in society. I don't can't quite see how he can't be considered a political philosopher, although I admit I've never been able to see a very clear distinction between Mises's conclusions and Hayek's knowledge problem.
Donny with an A:History, in any sense relevant to a debate over the virtues of self-teaching as opposed to obtaining a formal education, why would any of that be important?
Let me try to clarify if this is not sufficient ask and I will try again...
It seems to me that if you are debating the virtue of self-teaching over formal education (which I term institutionalized) then you need to clarify first what you classify as knowledge. I suggest this since it seems to me the goal of education is to gain knowledge of a certain subject or speciality. Therefore, epistemology (the study of what is knowledge) becomes critically important to what role self-education or formal education would play in the pursuit of becoming knowledgeable.
To give you an idea the critical role that epistemology plays in the university and its institutional role here is an example. In History and Political science about 50-75 years ago you would recieve a BS or MS. Due to the influence of contiental philosophy(post-modernism, deconstructionism) and the challenges to rationalism these fields have been changed over to arts so now you get a BA and MA(some schools still cling to science classifications). Anyway, the point is institutions' view of knowledge changes and evolves due to the context of the time. So in regards to self-teaching, as I stated, if you beleive in some form of neo-platonism, apriori reasoning, absolute truth or absolute axiomatic reasoning (unmutable & undemonstrable ideas about knowledge) then so long as you can grasp these independently formal education would be unessary in achieving knowledge.
I was trying to get people to clarify their idea of knowledge (epistemology) since it plays a critical role in education (formal or otherwise)
Inquisitor:History, where did you come across the terms being used in such a fashion? I'm aware of what you're referring to, but it is not typically framed in such language.
I need some clarity here and I will try to respond; if you are asking for my sources I am not pulling this out of anyone particular text, but can provide several suggestions for insight into both anglo-analytic and contienental epistemologies. The second statement I am unsure of what you are suggesting/asking;is it unclear, unconventional, or perhaps you like my use of language? Again , I was trying to simplify two very broad philosophical approaches to epistemology since I thought it was extremely important to the issue of education and that if individuals clarified their idea of knowledge then debating the role of formal education vs. self-education might be easier.
History:I was trying to get people to clarify their idea of knowledge (epistemology) since it plays a critical role in education (formal or otherwise)
For those subject matters which have little direct application or little feedback of their efficacy (such as the social sciences), I'd say people's definition of "knowledge" tends towards you 'B' type. But for many it fits the 'A' category, and institutions are helpful to help impart knowledge and lend their credibility to those claiming to be educated.
I would say an idea of what knowledge is is not necissary for an education. Knowledge is used as a tool, and one does not have to know the nature of a tool in order to use it. This is especially true of knowledge which has obvious and direct applications, such as the natural sciences, engineering, medicine, etc. One does not have to know what 'knowledge' is to chose the correct methodology to follow; one is able to just follow what works for one's ends. For the social sciences (especially economics, it seems) I'd say epistemology is much more important.
Given the limits of political and market processes, I'm wonder what the best way to go about picking the most epistemologically-sound knowledge is. I suppose prediction markets could help, effectively functioning as quicker feedback of the results of social policies where causality is foggy.
History, I simply found the way you phrased it odd. With regards to knowledge A do you mean knowledge that follows deductively once all the axioms in question are known? If so, this technically should be knowable by introspection, but in practice axiomatic-deductive reasoning is difficult and not always as obvious as the axioms it is built off, so I don't see how the need for formal education would disappear (would it be pointless to study mathematics, say, at university?) I might be misinterpreting you though.
Again, in fairness to your response I did claim these were simplified extremes of two general philsophical schools. I doubt any anglo-analytic or Contiental phislopher would ascribe to such non-rigourous simplifications as the ones I provided. It appears you would reject the idea of education I provided, but then what is goal of education? People in the sciences do not pursue as you state, " what works for one's ends" in fact they apply tests which usually generate theories which are not ascribed to absolutely, which are in turn tested again ad infinitum. But ones own ends usually does not play a role since these theories themselves are judged on their verifiability(Own ends conjures visions of mad scientists bent on world domination). In regards to your tool analogy I am envisioning myself about to perform a surgery without any knowledge of the tools at my disposal as the self-evident use of these scapels etc. will no doubt guide me succesfully. This is intended to be humurous but I am sure you can clarify what you mean with that analogy.
Inquisitor: History, I simply found the way you phrased it odd. With regards to knowledge A do you mean knowledge that follows deductively once all the axioms in question are known? If so, this technically should be knowable by introspection, but in practice axiomatic-deductive reasoning is difficult and not always as obvious as the axioms it is built off, so I don't see how the need for formal education would disappear (would it be pointless to study mathematics, say, at university?) I might be misinterpreting you though.
my previous post was in response to Grant..sorry
Inquisitor you raise a good point that in theory if a specific department in a institution itself ascribes to axiomatic-deductive reasoning and constructs its program around those axioms then yes the university would still be relevant in epistemology A. Yet, only in as much the program cohered to the foundational axiom. Technically in theory if you ascribe to this theory then if you had a computer that could factor in all potential variables(past, present, future) and apply the intial aximom then all things could be known. But obivously past events are incapable of being factored in thus this scenario is not possible ( as of yet). But let me state this does not mean I ascribe to epistemology A.
Grant, I think Mises' ideas were very helpful additions to the behavioral sciences, including economics, and political philosophy necessarily relies on the behavioral sciences very heavily. But just as I don't think psychology can fairly be labelled as political philosophy, I don't think economics can either. Surely political philosophy can't do much without the behavioral sciences, but that doesn't mean that they're the same thing.
History, I think we can avoid this conversation by saying that however we define knowledge, understanding, and learning, we would not want to say that a teacher can't educate a student. And we would also want to say that a teacher can educate a student well or poorly. I'm not sure if that commits me to a particular position on the status of knowledge. But if a stance on the nature of knowledge conflicted with my commonsense notions regarding education, I'd probably be more skeptical of the epistemological position.
Donny with an A: we would not want to say that a teacher can't educate a student.
You mean by forcing others to give the teacher money? I can teach. Anyone can teach. Who says who is the best teacher? I can be a student. I can be both. Does that now mean I have the right to take anyone's money?