Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

What ever happened to the 'new' mises community?

rated by 0 users
This post has 15 Replies | 2 Followers

Top 150 Contributor
Posts 539
Points 11,275
Consumariat Posted: Mon, Apr 30 2012 6:57 PM

I see they still have a 'groups' section, but wasn't there plans to revamp the board itself? It certainly needs it with the amount of bugs. 

  • | Post Points: 65
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 6,885
Points 121,845
Clayton replied on Mon, Apr 30 2012 7:06 PM

Good question. Not that I care to see them come back or anything.

I had what I thought was a brilliant idea last night - so they have those badges next to your name if you're a moderator or whatever. Then there are these "reading group" threads. People love to do things for badges and the more Austrian economics people read, the better. So, what if we created some new badges like "Human Action Scholar" or "Man, Economy and State Reader" and so on... and these badges can be earned by answering some as-yet-to-be-devised questionnaire (perhaps just a simple multiple-choice that requires more than superficial reading of the text).

Clayton -

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.com
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 539
Points 11,275

It's a nice idea. Another board I go on powered is by Xenforo, and that platform enables a feature similar to that. Although considering that even the simple stuff seems not to work on here (like quotes), it might be worth fixing them first.

Who is responsible for these boards? Why don't they just get a software package to produce a board that works out the box? 

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,439
Points 44,650
Neodoxy replied on Mon, Apr 30 2012 7:21 PM

New community sucked. Old community was better. Quality posters stayed on old community. Old community won. New new community is supposed to be a work in progress.

At last those coming came and they never looked back With blinding stars in their eyes but all they saw was black...
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 539
Points 11,275

Yeah but the present (old) one sucks too. The newer attempt was just spectacularly bad.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,940
Points 49,115
Conza88 replied on Tue, May 1 2012 6:32 AM

Would anyone like to hear my proposal for a forum structure that covers all bases [topics] in what I think is a comprehensive manner?

Ron Paul is for self-government when compared to the Constitution. He's an anarcho-capitalist. Proof.
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 6,953
Points 118,135

Consumariat:
What ever happened to the 'new' mises community?

Basically what Neodoxy said.  There is a thread on this here:

The Mises.org universe

 

Conza88:
Would anyone like to hear my proposal for a forum structure that covers all bases [topics] in what I think is a comprehensive manner?

Sure, why not

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,940
Points 49,115
Conza88 replied on Tue, May 1 2012 11:24 AM

So.. how to best structure a forum so there isn't any overlap but all areas are addressed? But not so things are too broad and unclear? A Miseian forum, requires a Misesian structure, no? :o Proposed result at end, patched together reasoning leads up to it.

"In particular, what are the differences between praxeology and technology, psychology, history, and ethics-all of which are in some way concerned with human action?

In brief, praxeology consists of the logical implications of the universal formal fact that people act, that they employ means to try to attain chosen ends. Technology deals with the contentual problem of how to achieve ends by adoption of means. Psychology deals with the question of why people adopt various ends and how they go about adopting them. Ethics deals with the question of what ends, or values, people should adopt. And history deals with ends adopted in the past, what means were used to try to achieve them-and what the consequences of these actions were.

Praxeology, or economic theory in particular, is thus a unique discipline within the social sciences; for, in contrast to the others, it deals not with the content of men's values, goals, and actions-not with what they have done or how they have acted or how they should act-but purely with the fact that they do have goals and act to attain them." -- MNR, http://mises.org/rothbard/praxeology.pdf

^ Provides a bit of the framework. Here more so:


To summarize up to this point, using a simple tree metaphor, the root of praxeology can be derived using the analysis of the actions of an isolated individual—the concept of action and its first implications. The trunk comprises the analysis of interaction with classes of communicative  acts—embordering/claiming and consenting—and accounts of the concept of first appropriation and the possibility of the consensual transfer of property titles. These concepts are logically prior to branching into economic theory and legal theory because the concepts of both branches logically presuppose some account of the root and trunk foundations, even if this is unacknowledged. The transition into branching may be identified with the move from universal features of all action or interaction to axiomatic deductions that are more narrowly specified with increasing factual or contextual assumptions that assure the relevance of analysis to the parameters of the type of world and context being considered.

To summarize up to this point, using a simple tree metaphor, the root of praxeology can be derived using the analysis of the actions of an isolated individual—the concept of action and its first implications. The trunk comprises the analysis of interaction with classes of communicative  acts—embordering/claiming and consenting—and accounts of the concept of first appropriation and the possibility of the consensual transfer of property titles. These concepts are logically prior to branching into economic theory and legal theory because the concepts of both branches logically presuppose some account of the root and trunk foundations, even if this is unacknowledged. The transition into branching may be identified with the move from universal features of all action or interaction to axiomatic deductions that are more narrowly specified with increasing factual or contextual assumptions that assure the relevance of analysis to the parameters of the type of world and context being considered.

(Source: libertarianpapers.org)


Deductive  legal  theory,  when  properly  applied  in  a  given  context, objectively and descriptively defines the parameters of what justice is in relation to questions of property rights, contracts, torts, and other legal matters. This yields  a  deeper-than-expected  foundation  for  the  traditional  libertarian insistence  on  not  mixing  law  with  morality  and  the  corollary  opposition  to “legislating  morality.”  Legal  theory  is  a  discrete  field  that,  like  Mises’s conception of economic theory, can provide descriptive, categorical input for use in “ought” considerations, even as legal theory and ethics remain distinct in foundations, scope, and method.

Deductive  legal  theory,  when  properly  applied  in  a  given  context, objectively and descriptively defines the parameters of what justice is in relation to questions of property rights, contracts, torts, and other legal matters. This yields  a  deeper-than-expected  foundation  for  the  traditional  libertarian insistence  on  not  mixing  law  with  morality  and  the  corollary  opposition  to “legislating  morality.”  Legal  theory  is  a  discrete  field  that,  like  Mises’s conception of economic theory, can provide descriptive, categorical input for use in “ought” considerations, even as legal theory and ethics remain distinct in foundations, scope, and method.

(Source: libertarianpapers.org)

And so we have...

by Kinsella
23-04-2012 07:46 PM Go to last post
11 34
 
  Forum Last Post Threads Posts
Discussion of political news, and complex issues requiring both legal and economic analysis.
24-04-2012 12:23 PM Go to last post
38 171
Discussion of political theory, Libertarianism, contract, torts, and mass torts (war, interventionism)
30-04-2012 07:57 PM Go to last post
30 117
Discussion of theory, Austrian school, direct exchange, indirect exchange, and price theory.
30-04-2012 07:48 PM Go to last post
23 102
Discussions of epistemology, logic, praxeology, and ethics.
by Hoppe
16-04-2012 11:58 PM Go to last post
25 13
Discussions of technology, history, thymology, natural sciences, psychology, and everything else
by Mises
23-04-2012 07:55 PM Go to last post
39 161


+So top section is every day complex issues that generally require both legal and economic analysis... for example; banking... it belongs neither just in economics side of things, or only on a political philosophical side... both arguments are often raised.

+The principled discussions about libertarianism, NAP, self-ownership, A priori of argumentation, anarchy etc. would go in jurisprudence.

+ Economics is self explanatory I'd hope. More catallatics than anything else I guess.

+ Philosophy... praxeology is in there because it's the basis of all epistemology ;o. (On Praxeology and the Praxeological Foundation of Epistemology: Chapter II - Hoppe, Economic Science and Austrian Method).

+ General could be seen as (off topic).

Thoughts?

Ron Paul is for self-government when compared to the Constitution. He's an anarcho-capitalist. Proof.
  • | Post Points: 35
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,679
Points 45,110

+1 Conza

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 6,885
Points 121,845
Clayton replied on Tue, May 1 2012 4:29 PM

Now all we need is a Commercial Off-the-Shelf forum software! :-D

Clayton -

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.com
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 6,953
Points 118,135

That's a pretty detailed explication for forum structure.

The only thing I would be concerned with is forcing people to click into each major forum just view the new threads.  We just don't have enough activity to warrant abandoning the current "all activity" view format.

But as far as grouping everything like that, all threads are already forced to reside in subcategories...so we could easily just change the names of the forums we have if people wanted that.

But even for a new forum, I would say we'd still need to keep the current view format.

 

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 539
Points 11,275

I think keep it as simple as possible. The attempt at creating something all new and crazy flopped on its arse. Best just to have a familiar, stable, and non-buggy platform. Although I am essentially grandad before my time, so maybe I'm not the best person to listen to.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 6,885
Points 121,845
Clayton replied on Wed, May 2 2012 8:34 PM

My vote: Keep everything as it is for now, just migrate to real forum software such as this.

Clayton -

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.com
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,940
Points 49,115
Conza88 replied on Thu, May 3 2012 2:01 AM

Gawd damnit, and so I responded... and error wiped the whole post. This is why mises.org forum members can't have nice things. Le sigh.

Re: "That's a pretty detailed explication for forum structure."

I'm interested in the 'big picture' a whole lot, hence trying to envisiage what the structure of reality in terms of knowledge looks like.

Re: "The only thing I would be concerned with is forcing people to click into each major forum just view the new threads.  We just don't have enough activity to warrant abandoning the current "all activity" view format."

Well I assumed there would be a 'new posts' thread, or 'active posts' section as is the case with most forums. As for not having the activity - agreed, but the reason for that I think is because it's a symptom of this crippled forum - which has been like this for an aggggggge.

Re: "But as far as grouping everything like that, all threads are already forced to reside in subcategories...so we could easily just change the names of the forums we have if people wanted that."

Yep. Atm it's completely nonsensical. Main forums "Economics" and "Misc".. with "political theory" being a sub-forum of economics? lol.

Another thing with the proper categories, it'd be easier for folks to find threads / discussions.. and there would be less repeated ones.

Ron Paul is for self-government when compared to the Constitution. He's an anarcho-capitalist. Proof.
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 100 Contributor
Male
Posts 814
Points 14,875
Moderator

I'm right in thinking that Danny Sanchez is heading up a new new community forum? I seem to remember he posted a thread a while back wanting ideas. Don't know if it's gone anywhere yet.

The atoms tell the atoms so, for I never was or will but atoms forevermore be.

Yours sincerely,

Physiocrat

  • | Post Points: 5
Page 1 of 1 (16 items) | RSS