http://www.vforvoluntary.com/blog
Propaganda cartoon for the European Central Bank.
http://www.againstpolitics.com/2011/06/22/voting-anarchists/
"Austrian economists define rationality as purposive behavior. This makes it harder to adapt the framework in which it can be hypothesized that it is irrational to vote. As a consequence, Austrians are not able to launch a research program to investigate the implications and consequences of this phenomenon for public policy. In contrast, classical economists like Bryan Caplan, who are not burdened by such a vacuous definition of rationality, have made useful contributions to the microfoundations of political failure."
LMAO This is ridiculous. It can be hypothesized that it is irrational to vote when you look at how effective, or not, voting is in achieving whatever political purpose one has. I liked this site when I found an interview with Jan Narveson on it, but much else is not very enlightening.
Is there an Austrian definition for rationality?
The Food-Stamp Crime Wave
CBO's 2011 Long-Term Budget Outlook
If I'm not mistaken Misse would have defined rationality as purposeful behavior directed at achieving a particular goal. So, yea, even there that author paints a strawman. For, if in voting you are unable to achieve your goals it becomes irrational to continue to believe that voting will accomplish whatever it is you want to accomplish.
The first part of the article is right. Mises wrote that all purposeful behavior is rational.
Here's the quote, from HA:
When applied to the means chosen for the attainment of ends, the terms rational and irrational imply a judgment about the expediency and adequacy of the procedure employed. The critic approves or disapproves of the method from the point of view of whether or not it is best suited to attain the end in question. It is a fact that human reason is not infallible and that man very often errs in selecting and applying means. An action unsuited to the end sought falls short of expectation. It is contrary to purpose, but it is rational, i.e., the outcome of a reasonable—although faulty—deliberation and an attempt—although an ineffectual attempt—to attain a definite goal. The doctors who a hundred years ago employed certain methods for the treatment of cancer which our contemporary doctors reject were—from the point of view of present-day pathology—badly instructed and therefore inefficient. But they did not act irrationally; they did their best. It is probable that in a hundred years more doctors will have more efficient methods at hand for the treatment of this disease. They will be more efficient but not more rational than our physicians.
The article's mistake is concluding that since all action is rational, therefore there is no point investigating what means best achieve an end.
That's a non sequitor. Because all action is rational means the actor did what he thought best. That does not mean there is no better way, or no point in trying to find a better way, or that the actor was right in thinking his means would get him his ends.
So sure, there might be a point to finding out if voting ever gets things done.
My humble blog
It's easy to refute an argument if you first misrepresent it. William Keizer
It's not right. Here's the quote, "Austrian economists define rationality as purposive behavior." From the section you quoted Mises says, "But they did not act irrationally; they did their best. " They did not act irrationally based on the knowledge of the time. However, if it was known at the time that those methods were ineffective then it would have been irrational to continue to use those methods.
If we can't say its "irrational" we can still recognize that it doesn't achieve the goals set and call it something else, such as incorrect or something.
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/06/nozicks-tale-of-slave.html
lol the funny quote
"In my libertarian days I agreed with this judgment, though I no longer do. The usual disclaimer applies: That does not by any means entail that I now think that “anything goes.” Much that modern governments demand of us is unjust, and some of it (such as saddling their citizens with crushing debt) may fairly be described as in some respects comparable to slavery. The point is just that I now believe, on natural law grounds, that it is false to say that requiring citizens to support any functions beyond the minimal state is inherently unjust or comparable to slavery. "
What natural law grounds are those?
Why Libertarians Should Use Freed Software (and other freed culture)
More than 10,000 music albums under Creative Commons BY and Creative Commons BY-SA licenses!
http://www.jamendo.com/en/creativecommons
http://www.facebook.com/vforvoluntary
Doug Stanhope - Medicinal Marijuana
My Blog: http://www.anarchico.net/
Production is 'anarchistic' - Ludwig von Mises
Ho-ly shit. I mean I knew people were ignorant. I guess I just had no idea of the extent...and how widespread it was....
Ron Paul: "We're trying to unwind a Keynesian bubble..."
Bill O'Reilly: "..I think it's 'kinesian', right? Kinesian...
John Stossel: "Keynesian. It's spelled 'keens' but pronounced 'kaynes'
Bill O'Reilly: "what...what is that?"
John James wrote:
What you expect from the original PINHEAD -
We are the soldiers for righteousnessAnd we are not sent here by the politicians you drink with - L. Dube, rip
I heard O'Reilly say that on TV. I was thinking, "wow, this guy is taken seriously by his drone followers?" O'Reilly has calmed down in the last few years, but if anybody wants to see the one that the Left bashes incessantly, look at O'Reilly circa 2003. He was pushing the Iraq War as hard as possible and recommending that any dissent zip it while the State does its dirty business. Not only that, but after the stabilization of the area was failing miserably, he would just lambaste anybody who thought that the mission wasn't "noble."
He did get an e-mail the following night after the Stossel interview which said, "Bill, if you don't understand what Ron Paul was talking about, you are part of the problem in this country."
Off-the-Record (OTR) Messaging (wikipedia) allows you to have private conversations over instant messaging by providing: EncryptionNo one else can read your instant messages. AuthenticationYou are assured the correspondent is who you think it is. DeniabilityThe messages you send do not have digital signatures that are checkable by a third party. Anyone can forge messages after a conversation to make them look like they came from you. However, during a conversation, your correspondent is assured the messages he sees are authentic and unmodified. Perfect forward secrecyIf you lose control of your private keys, no previous conversation is compromised. [..]
Off-the-Record (OTR) Messaging (wikipedia) allows you to have private conversations over instant messaging by providing:
[..]
Read the rest (with links, plugin, etc) here:
http://www.vforvoluntary.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=147
Senator Lee: Gold, silver should be treated like currency
Bachmann’s Waterloo
President Barack Obama claims his regulatory review is unprecedented
That cartoon was horrible
from fmylife.com:
Today, I actually resorted to checking the newspaper obituaries to see where the deceased were employed, just so I can find a job opening.