" And the reason why I made that conversion is important. Libertarian insights in a lot of ways are basic, Econ 101 insights about the efficiency of free contracting writ large and converted into norms or political values. In other words, I think one of the most essential libertarian fallacies is building a politico-ethical system around positive social science findings (and, I want to stress, basic and introductory social science findings at that). It's kind of an odd way of going about formulating a politico-ethical system. We don't adopt Nietzschean super-man ethics because of evolutionary biology, and we shouldn't simply adopt libertarianism because of these insights. I want to be clear - my point is not that you have to mix up normative and positive findings to come to libertarianism. My point is only that it's possible to get everything there is to get out of libertarianism simply by improving people's knowledge of social science. This is only to say that it's not entirely clear to me what should be important here: teaching people more social science, or sharing libertarianism. But even that isn't entirely satisfying - after all, the reason why I abandoned libertarianism was because I kept learning social science. Yes, the market is efficient and the price mechanism leverages decentralized knowledge. But if institutions don't or can't internalize costs and benefits social scientific insights start to militate against the efficiency of markets. Uncertainty and imperfections ensure that market forces, as fantastic as they are, are going to remain sub-optimal. I haven't abandoned any of the introductory insights in adopting these views - the complement the introductory insights that I still use. I still have a relatively contractarian view of human relations. I still take a fairly atomized, individualist view of things. I still come down on Hayek and Mises's side of the socialist calculation debate. But I can't call myself a libertarian. So, if what we really want is to get people to take the implications of social science more seriously, then its not clear that that would move people towards libertarianism either." -Daniel Kuehn
I think this is an interesting insight, though I find issue with it for this reason: Did Rothbard not "keep learning social science"? What about Walter Block, or other career Austro/Libertarians? Is there an implication that in order to maintain Libertarianism, we must stop at elementary observations? I'm sure DK can clarify if he wishes, and I hope he does. Anyway, thoughts?
I don't sit around thinking about SmilingDave
WHEW!
My humble blog
It's easy to refute an argument if you first misrepresent it. William Keizer
Agreed Dave, but doesn't it bother you just a little bit that you spend time thinking about me? I mean, that Rockwell/Schiff thread, that's a sign of obsession. Dude, I am not worth it.
Oh no doubt, liberty student. Don't misinterpret me to be saying you should obsess over it and get depressed over it.
But you seem to be reveling in it. No matter.
SD, Prateek is exaggerating, as he is wont to do. There is no such forum. From time to time people on the Alliance of the Libertarian Left forum complain about us being mod tyrants, rich white fat males whose property should be redistributed, "arch-Catholic moral nihilists", and other divers and sundry things. But the A.L.L. forum isn't "devoted" to that. The thread linked to in Daniel Kuhen's comments is this one.
Heh, I had a feeling Prateek was referring to that forum.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
Daniel Kuehn:Well sure. Then perhaps the question ought to be "why does the word 'best' imply objectivity to you?". You can identify what is "best" according to your subjective preferences, can't you?
Well, I'd say that's because I'm used to people making statements of the form "X is the best", which implies to me that they're making a claim about objective reality.
No need to waste time reading it. The story is always the same. I went to a forum just to troll and got banned despite my best efforts to be sly and underhanded about it.
Am I the only one who lost track of the discussion somewhere around page 4?
It happens often here.
Daniel James Sanchez:SD, Prateek is exaggerating, as he is wont to do. There is no such forum.
GEE THANKS! Now I won't be able to go around to people's blogs and anonymously "warn" them about the evil Liberty Student and his banhammer of suffering.It's like you just told a nation of idiot peasants that there will be no tv for a week. What will the pygmies do without a mindless drama to inspire them?
@Coase, you didnt miss much. Autolykos was pwning DK, and DK was ignoring me because his blog warned him about this website and my "reputation of doom and misery". There was some piling on after Prateek pranked the chapter of my local fan club, but now all of the air has left the bubble because Lilburne had an attack of reason and sensibility get the better of him.
Daniel Kuehn:"Optimization" is always a reference to constrained optimization. I think it's left unsaid because it's implied.
Has anyone ever made the implication explicit?
Daniel Kuehn:I strongly agree with you on this. I understand you all don't like to use math, but I've thought for a long time that the math and your logical claims say the same thing. All a constrained optimization problem says is "the agent will continue to do something as long as the additional utility of doing that thing exceeds the additional disutility of doing that thing". That's always sounded to me like the sort of claim you all make.
So what's the point of using math, if you can get to the same conclusions without it?
Daniel Kuehn:I'm aware - but understand when you ask me what I think about things, I don't decide what I think with reference to what Austrians or anyone else cares about.
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you do otherwise. My point was that justifying things in terms of math may not satisfiy others (such as Austrians), so they'll keep asking you for more justification.
Daniel Kuehn:What I mean is this - no one ever goes out and tries to measure how much utility two people get from something and compare them. That use of intersubjective comparisons would be inappropriate. However, if we only use intersubjective comparisons to do some marginal analysis to derive a result that you agreed above is essentially the same as yours, why shouldn't we?
Apparently, some people do.
I guess what I'm asking is, how are intersubjective comparisons of utility ever appropriate? Furthermore, if you can reach the same conclusions without using intersubjective comparisions, what's the point in using them?
Daniel Kuehn: re: "Fourth and finally, if "the use of marginal utility using a common measure of utility is completely inconsequential", why is it done? I simply don't understand." Because you can derive considerably more reasonable hypotheses to test than Austrians can.
re: "Fourth and finally, if "the use of marginal utility using a common measure of utility is completely inconsequential", why is it done? I simply don't understand."
Because you can derive considerably more reasonable hypotheses to test than Austrians can.
First off, what is your definition of "reasonable hypothesis"? Second, why must economics be framed in terms of hypotheses to be tested?
Daniel Kuehn:1. No, it does not "remain to be seen". The subjectivity thing you all worry so much about is a dead issue. Every economist is a subjectivist and it baffles me that this point even caught on with you guys. 2. See above for the point.
2. See above for the point.
1. What I meant was that it remains to be seen by me. Simply reasserting that it's a "dead issue" doesn't convince me of that. Perhaps you don't care about convincing me, but if so, then I'll question your entire purpose of being in this thread.
2. I'm still challenging your point.
I have no idea what Autolykos and DK are arguing about.
liberty student:because Lilburne had an attack of reason and sensibility get the better of him.
DK, in case this part was confusing, "Lilburne" was my old handle.
I want to weigh in on that one because it is a pet peeve of mine. Answer:
It makes the argument more transparent by making the assumptions involved totally explicit. And that is actually a huge productivity improvement for academic economics. Here's why.
There used to be a cottage industry in economics that dealt exclusively with trying to decipher the writing of previous economists--writing papers that dealt with subjects like "What did Keynes *really* mean when he said X in the General Theory". In Austrian economics, you will find this industry still thriving, with papers being routinely published on "what Mises *really* meant" in works that are almost 70 years old (even my favorite Austrian authors are in on this game: http://www.peterleeson.com/Was_Mises_Right.pdf).
However, in mainstream economics, these types of papers are essentially obsolete for almost any major economist working in the past 50 years. For example, you will never read a paper on "what Peter Diamond *really* meant in paper X" becuase we know EXACTLY what he meant. Thanks to the simplicity and rigour of mathematics.
So, if you can get the same conclusions in mathematics as "regular english", the real question is why WOULDN'T you choose to express your arguments in the clearest way possible. Of course, I would argue that because writing in "regular english" so often times leads to sloppy thinking that by making arguments in mathematics we actually reach more robust conclusions than we would other wise.
Ambition is a dream with a V8 engine - Elvis Presley
re: " DK was ignoring me because his blog warned him about this website and my "reputation of doom and misery"."
No, I was ignoring you because you were relentlessly asking pointless questions that I had either already answered or that themselves begged the question about differences in our premises.
I noted that as soon as you baraged me with these questions. You're the one that's written half a dozen comments on it since.