well i did read it, i just dont accept Block's claim
obviously, Hayek wasn't an anarchist, so obviously he thought that there was a legit reason for government involvement, that doesnt make him an ordo for it...
My Blog: http://www.anarchico.net/
Production is 'anarchistic' - Ludwig von Mises
Isaac "Izzy" Marmolejo:well i did read it, i just dont accept Block's claim obviously, Hayek wasn't an anarchist, so obviously he thought that there was a legit reason for government involvement, that doesnt make him an ordo for it...
(a) that is not what you said. You said "clearly, if one watches Hayek's interviews, one does not get that view that Hayek was an ordo."
(b)...
"Ordoliberalism is a school of liberalism that emphasised the need for the state to ensure that the free market produces results close to its theoretical potential (see allocative efficiency). [...]
"Ordoliberal theory holds that the state must create a proper legal environment for the economy and maintain a healthy level of competition (rather than just "exchange") through measures that adhere to market principles."
Stephen Padgett: "A central tenet of ordo-liberalism is a clearly defined division of labor in economic management, with specific responsibilities assigned to particular institutions. Monetary policy should be the responsibility of a central bank committed to monetary stability and low inflation, and insulated from political pressure by independent status. Fiscal policy—balancing tax revenue against government expenditure—is the domain of the government, whilst macro-economic policy is the preserve of employers and trade unions."
That sounds exactly like what Hayek was advocating. And besides...Block never used the term "ordo" throughout the entire paper. But here's someone who did... (Scribd)(PDF)(YouTube) And here's someone else. (PDF)
how does
'You said "clearly, if one watches Hayek's interviews, one does not get that view that Hayek was an ordo.""
contradict this
obviously, Hayek wasn't an anarchist, so obviously he thought that there was a legit reason for government involvement, that doesnt make him an ordo for it..
"is the domain of the government, whilst macro-economic policy is the preserve of employers and trade unions."
"Monetary policy should be the responsibility of a central bank committed to monetary stability and low inflation, and insulated from political pressure by independent status"
Isaac "Izzy" Marmolejo: how does 'You said "clearly, if one watches Hayek's interviews, one does not get that view that Hayek was an ordo."" contradict this obviously, Hayek wasn't an anarchist, so obviously he thought that there was a legit reason for government involvement, that doesnt make him an ordo for it..
Did I say it did?
arent you implying that im contradicting myself or something like that when you said: 'that is not what you said..'?
I'm wondering where she was planning on going with the "government out of marriage" thing. Somehow I don't think the "I hope he's not a muslim" and "white people coming to lynch the black president" chick is sympathetic to libertarian views. Either way it's nice to see Benton not fall for it.
Isaac "Izzy" Marmolejo:arent you implying that im contradicting myself or something like that when you said: 'that is not what you said..'?
Um. No. I'm saying that's not what you originally said...as in, what you said the second time around is not the same thing as the statement we are discussing.
If I say "the moon is a satellite" and someone disagreed and we began to discuss the issue, and then I came back and said "the sun is a star", the other person could rightfully reply "That's not what you said." Because it isn't. And it isn't what we were talking about. Two things don't have to contradict each other to not be the same as one another.
they do go together though... clearly, if you watch Hayek's interviews you wont get that ordo label on him. i dont see how my second point goes against this point. Hayek's obviously believed in the role for government, that doesnt make him a ordo
Isaac "Izzy" Marmolejo:they do go together though... clearly, if you watch Hayek's interviews you wont get that ordo label on him. i dont see how my second point goes against this point. Hayek's obviously believed in the role for government, that doesnt make him a ordo
Okay so before you didn't see how your first statement "contradicted" your second statement. I stated quite clearly I said no such thing, that what I said was they are not the same thing...and that two things do not have to contradict each other to not be the same.
Now you don't see how your first statement "goes against" your second statement. Is there something about the definition of "contradict" that you don't understand?
no, im not talking about contradiction.... I am just wondering why you just pointed out the statement ' that is not what you said.' The two points that I made go well together and they mean the same thing but with different wording
You gotta love it.
Contessa Brewer sets a trap...and steps in it.
(Notice how by the end of the interview he has "expertise" in the matter )
Isaac "Izzy" Marmolejo:no, im not talking about contradiction....
Sigh.
Then you stated you don't see how your first statement "goes against" your second statement. So I asked if you have some problem with the definition of "contradict", because I had just stated quite clearly that I said nothing about the statements "contradicting", and most would agree "goes against" is the definition of "contradict".
It's like if someone asks "would you like a beverage?" And you reply, "no, thank you". And then their very next statement to you is "Well would you like something to drink?"
Now you're going all the way and claiming the two statements you made are the same thing, yet I wonder if it's just so that you can maintain disagreement.
Austrian Economics: Why It Matters
Tom Woods stops by "On Money" in Wheeling, West Virginia, before speaking to the West Liberty Economics Club at West Liberty University.
There's an odd editing blip around 4 minutes, but the rest is fine.
Hayek wasn't even close to a libertarian.
And I don't understand why people won't use it more. "Like welfare state? Read some Hayek!"
I wish he was a bit less confused about what the constrained vision is (or at least described it more accurately), but the story of his transition and the fact that it occurred is awesome.
Inspiring. Such a large transition!
Dirty capitalists stealing the land of the masses:
http://singularityhub.com/2011/08/23/entrepreneur-anshe-chung-makes-millions-selling-virtual-land-banking-and-fashion/
JJ, I understood what you were saying when I asked if how i contradicted myself, my response after that wasnt to further the conversation about contradiction, I was just wondering why you pointed out what I said as ' that is not what you said.' to me that point seemed irrelevant.
Just By The Way:
What happened to my ranking? (The little green boxes under my avatar)? I used to have one box and was happily anticipating a second :(
Edit: It's back, and it's got a friend!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=eUSaNN0LTWk#!
http://www.theonion.com/articles/drunken-ben-bernanke-tells-everyone-at-neighborhoo,21059/
Very insightful, for a left leaning paper.
My humble blog
It's easy to refute an argument if you first misrepresent it. William Keizer
Since you brought up the Onion (Slightly not safe for work (language)):
http://www.theonion.com/articles/voice-inside-cheering-libyan-rebels-head-oh-fuck-n,21204/
Andrew Klavan's rules for wannabe pundits
heh
Wen someone says that war helps economies, is it a good refutation to point at African countries at civil war and ask why war is not making them better? Or is it a bit of a straw man?
Wheylous:Wen someone says that war helps economies, is it a good refutation to point at African countries at civil war and ask why war is not making them better? Or is it a bit of a straw man?
Why do you even have to go there?
I agree that there is that argument as well, but many listen to it. Is mine any good or no? (But also thanks for the vids)
Your argument specifically looking at African countries is poor at best. There are too many variables for them to retreat to and too many facts you would have to present, too many concepts you would have to explain, and most importantly, too many indoctrinated myths you would have to debunk. It opens the door to too many other myths and flawed arguments. They'll come right back and ask you "how come WWII got us out of the Great Depression?" Then you'll have to go into all that, because if you try to stay focused on the issue they'll think they made a good point and that you're dodging. Then they'll say "Well then how come the US did so well after WWII?" And if they know anything about history they'll say "how come things got so good after the Civil War?" It goes on and on. When you're talking with people who not only know so little to begin with, but also know so much that isn't so, you'll never get anywhere by following their Gish Gallop all over the place.
And this is even more difficult if you're not intellectually and informationally equipped enough to answer all those questions. It's just not an effective way to argue, at least not for the purposes you're talking about. This is the whole point of hypotheticals and analogies. It breaks arguments down to their bare essentials so that people can see the logic of the case....as well as stay focused. If people will not accept something as basic as a parable about a broken window, there is no way you will have any success with using a specific real world examples they know virutally nothing about. (And which, I would have to assume, you don't know enough about yourself.)
For more information on how to effectively deal with these situations, see here and here.
And look what was just published today...
Gotta love the world we now live in:
And as coincidence would have it, I come across this today for the first time:
Keynesian Economics in under 1 minute (courtesy The 5th Element)
http://news.yahoo.com/ap-impact-automation-air-dulls-pilot-skill-070507795.html
Imagine what will happen when we have automated cars. *shivers*
Ha. That's funny...check out what I just read a few hours ago...
"No driver needed: Iowa firm develops 'autonomous tractor'"
What it takes to win:
http://www.dailypaul.com/176742/what-it-takes-to-win-ron-paul
Here is a man speaking on principle and not simply on "votes" and "political figure." He will live long past his last breath.
Also, just thought this was interesting:
First 4 articles on Yahoo currently:
- Young lady moved to tears by NFL star
- Why Aniston always wears the same bikini
- Racy Kardashian music video leaks
- NCAA hits Miami with suspensions
And then we wonder why voter turnout is low and ignorance high.
I am by no means against entertainment news. But all of it entertainment and on stupid stuff? Have a "diversify your knowledge" segment on there or something.
Michael Allison Faces 75 Years In Illinois Prison for recording police
Broken windows, anyone?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/aug/30/in-wake-of-disasters-some-see-economic-opportunity/
David Boaz and Nick Gillespie present Walter Block's book!:
John Stossel - Defending The Undefendable
@John James, I found a loop that didn't lead back to philosophy!
Britney Spears -> McComb, Mississippi -> Pike County, Mississippi -> Country (United States) -> U.S. state -> Federated state -> Constitution -> State (polity) -> Social science -> List of academic disciplines -> Knowledge -> Facts -> Latin -> Italic languages -> Indo-European languages -> Language family -> Language -> Human -> Species -> Biology -> Natural science -> Science -> Knowledge (repeat loop)