" 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?
Daniel Kuehn:autolykos - Nobody is asking you to take anything on faith. I'm saying that if you're skeptical of something and expect me to answer to that skepticism you ought to be able to articulate exactly what it is that I'm answering to. You're the one that brought all these issues up, after all.
Nobody is asking you to take anything on faith. I'm saying that if you're skeptical of something and expect me to answer to that skepticism you ought to be able to articulate exactly what it is that I'm answering to. You're the one that brought all these issues up, after all.
I don't know how else to take repeated reassertions of extraneity as not containing an implication to take the claim of extraneity on faith. I think I've already articulated exactly what it is that you're answering to - namely, why are quantification and inter-subjective value comparisons extraneous to subjective valuation? Please see these two posts.
Daniel Kuehn:Nothing I know of to grab for immediately, but word searches on my blog are your best bet. I think the skeleton of my point on first principles has been laid out in this very comment section and a lot can be inferred from what I've said here. What exactly is still unclear?
The two posts that I linked to above should answer that question. But thanks otherwise - I'll try to do that sometime soon.
Daniel Kuehn:As for economist lingo - essentially no modern economist isn't a subjectivist and any reference to optimization is a reference to constrained optimization. I really can't think of anyone that maintains anything other than a subjective value theory and constrained optimization. So you're pretty safe assuming both.
I don't, because you used the term "a subjective value theory". How can there be more than one?
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
Daniel Kuehn:We don't have laws for everything we are interested in having laws for, and no derivation from the laws we do have can get us there.
Do you mean we've derived all the laws that can be derived? Or that no laws can be derived using more fundamental laws (plus consideration of the meaning of conditions posited)?
Isn't "law" somewhat a strong word for any regularities you can hope to discover in the social realm via experimental means?
re: "I brought this up earlier but Daniel has been ignoring my substantive posts under the guise of being forewarned about my online presence or something. I can't wait to pull that one in debate myself."
Can you stop saying this liberty student? I've answered a slew of your points. If I have missed any it's because I am overwhelmed by them or have already answered a similar version, not because I'm ignoring them. Don't blame commenters here when you present a barage of questions and commenters don't dedicate themselves to answering every single one of them. How many questions have I posed to you? Almost all I've been doing has been answering questions and clarifying those answer - many of them your questions.
Daniel -
re: "Do you mean we've derived all the laws that can be derived?"
I'm not sure how one would know how many laws could be derived! Do we have an upper bound on this? If there are more to be derived, then by all means derive them! My only point is that the exercise of deriving new laws ought not to be used as an excuse to limit the scientific method, which is also a productive endeavor.
re: "Isn't "law" somewhat a strong word for any regularities you can hope to discover in the social realm via experimental means?"
Yes. Have I called such a thing a law? If I have, I shouldn't have.
autolykos - FYI, IMO the well is dry. Feel free to keep going over those points if you want.
What exactly do you mean?
If I keep going over those points when your will is (apparently) dry, wouldn't I just be talking to myself?
In all honesty, this sounds like you're just giving up.
Daniel Kuehn:Can you stop saying this liberty student? I've answered a slew of your points. If I have missed any it's because I am overwhelmed by them or have already answered a similar version, not because I'm ignoring them.
I could stop saying it, but you have already claimed you have explicitly avoided answering my points, see here
Daniel Kuehn: 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.
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.
This is the parts where you contradict yourself. VVVV
Daniel Kuehn:not because I'm ignoring them.
Daniel Kuehn:I was ignoring you
I'll admit that I can be less than charming, dismissive and at times, maybe even a little belligerent, but what really pisses off the people who don't like me, is that I call them on their bullshit. And what you have fed me is a line of bullshit.
re: "If I keep going over those points when your will is (apparently) dry, wouldn't I just be talking to myself?"
Yes.
re: "In all honesty, this sounds like you're just giving up."
Giving up on convincing you, perhaps. Giving up on talking about something I wasn't particularly interested in talking about in this post, certainly. But not conceding the point. If it sounds otherwise to you, I can't do much about that.
Dk, i can live w/that :)
Ambition is a dream with a V8 engine - Elvis Presley
re: "what really pisses off the people who don't like me, is that I call them on their bullshit"
I highly doubt this ranks high on the list of what pisses people off about you.
Daniel Kuehn:I'm not sure how one would know how many laws could be derived! Do we have an upper bound on this? If there are more to be derived, then by all means derive them! My only point is that the exercise of deriving new laws ought not to be used as an excuse to limit the scientific method, which is also a productive endeavor.
I don't think any Austrians deny experimental methods altogether because of the fruitfulness of our method. If we considered them both to be effective, then fine, use both, or either. We deny experimental methods in economics because of the fundamental problems of those methods with regard to matters of human choice, not simply because of our enthusiasm for an alternative method.
Daniel Kuehn: re: "If I keep going over those points when your will is (apparently) dry, wouldn't I just be talking to myself?" Yes.
How charitable of you!
Daniel Kuehn: re: "In all honesty, this sounds like you're just giving up." Giving up on convincing you, perhaps. Giving up on talking about something I wasn't particularly interested in talking about in this post, certainly. But not conceding the point. If it sounds otherwise to you, I can't do much about that.
What if I start a separate thread where we can discuss things? Would you post in it?
On the other hand, I find it simply amazing that you come into this thread to clarify your position, yet you're not interested in defending that position from others who believe they disagree with it.
re: "What if I start a separate thread where we can discuss things? Would you post in it?"
No, dude. Sorry. Look, I know these questions interest a lot of people on here, but they don't interest me all that much. I don't want you to take this personally, but for me the value of constrained optimization is settled, the question of subjectivism vs. objectivism is settled and any viable objections that can be raised against inter-subjective comparisons pale in comparison to the benefits that the assumption offers in formal modeling. Unless there is some new argument out there about these issues that I haven't heard, I'm only interested in spending so much time talking about it!
re: "On the other hand, I find it simply amazing that you come into this thread to clarify your position, yet you're not interested in defending that position from others who believe they disagree with it."
The questions you've been asking strike me as being highly tangential to the "interesting tidbit" that was first posted, and even then I've spent several comments on the questions you've raised. I think it's unfair of you to say that I'm "not interested in defending that position". I've spent a lot of time engaging these points of yours - time that could have been spent doing other things.
Daniel Kuehn:No, dude. Sorry. Look, I know these questions interest a lot of people on here, but they don't interest me all that much. I don't want you to take this personally, but for me the value of constrained optimization is settled, the question of subjectivism vs. objectivism is settled and any viable objections that can be raised against inter-subjective comparisons pale in comparison to the benefits that the assumption offers in formal modeling. Unless there is some new argument out there about these issues that I haven't heard, I'm only interested in spending so much time talking about it!
On the one hand, I can only infer from this that your position re: quantification and inter-subjective value comparisons is that the ends justify the means. Well, I completely disagree. From what I understand (and I, unlike you, admit to my understanding possibly being flawed or incomplete), the means you advocate are inconsistent at best and dishonest at worst.
But since the ends already justify the means to you, and you've apparently closed off your mind to any other possibility, I'm not surprised that you haven't been convinced by counter-arguments on this subject. Apparently you haven't been convinced because you won't let yourself be convinced, which essentially means ignoring the counter-arguments presented.
Daniel Kuehn:The questions you've been asking strike me as being highly tangential to the "interesting tidbit" that was first posted, and even then I've spent several comments on the questions you've raised. I think it's unfair of you to say that I'm "not interested in defending that position". I've spent a lot of time engaging these points of yours - time that could have been spent doing other things.
Once again, you simply assert that they're tangential without explaining why to my satisfaction. I can only take this to mean that you've been trying to shut me up this entire time, and since you're not succeeding, you're simply withdrawing instead. You only refer me to your blog, where the onus would be on me to sift through countless posts to (perhaps painstakingly) glean the insight I'm looking for. Thanks a lot.
No, I don't think I'm being unfair at all. Of course, I meant that you're not interested in defending your position in this thread. I figured that meaning was obvious, since I prefaced it with a reference to you coming into this thread in the first place. So it doesn't matter where else you've defended your positions, because I haven't been there. But I have been here.
That's a very good post auto and it sums up the discussion thus far. Pages of hand waving. Who knows, maybe it works better on blogs.