I will cover parts of your post that others did not address. You also forgot to tell me what your primary language is.
Homo Illuminatus?:An absolutely can free market can exists in the real world as little as anarchy can work in the real world. Both are theoretical abstractions.
They are actually both the same (from a Rothbardian point of view), and they both have existed in "quasi states", which you must at least credit, where the state as we know it, did not exist.
Homo Illuminatus?: I have read “Anarchy, State and Utopia” and find Nozicks arguments weak for the anarchist state where everything is contracted upon.
Of course you did! Nozick does not argue for anarchy!!!!! I haven't even read that book and I am aware of that. Try reading myth of national defense. It consists of many authors. And you can read it online, without payment and "breaking" any laws.
Homo Illuminatus?:I’m not prohibiting immigrants but restricting their access to my territory
That is prohibiting. Watch this.
From now all we should restrict access to this thread from all forum posters who do not reside in the nordic countries. That is a restriction and prohibition of all posters who do not reside in Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Iceland and Finland (and all their territories).
From now on, only posters who reside in Sweden should be restricted/prohibited from posting.
Now in the second rule, it is less restrictive then the first. But they are both still examples of prohibition. Less restriction is still prohibition, and whilst it does not create as many negative effects is STILL prohibition.
Homo Illuminatus?:I agree that prohibition does not work but restriction has worked. (Unless you equate restriction with prohibition
As you see from the above I do. And what evidence do you point to restriction working? It simply does not suck as much as total prohibition of all drugs or immigrants does.
Homo Illuminatus?:The quip about Randians was just a quip about the semi-religious nature of certain US libertarians belief system. Paraphrasing “Allah is god and Mohammed is his prophet”.
Well then it fulfills the definition of quip in the sense that what you wrote is strange since it defies history. All schools of thought have those who are dogmatic. However, because the Austrian school is based on principles, which are derived from logic, we are Dogmatic. It does not afford the same degree of movement and flexibility that empirical evidence does, as other posters have tried very hard to show you.
Homo Illuminatus?:It is correct that they never said “though shalt not do calculations” but their later day followers seem to have interpreted them as prohibiting econometrics
Maybe some do, and once again remember that calculation does not = econometrics. Econometrics differs from other methods of statistical analysis.
Homo Illuminatus?: The neo-Keynesians have adapted with both Chicago School and Austrian School ideas especially now with the Austrian Business Cycle theory getting mainstream traction
Well that is all a misinterpretation especially of the U.S. because that hasn't happened.
Homo Illuminatus?:I don’t agree with him that the Austrian School should go mainstream but that it should adopt and evolve.
It has evolved, but it evolves in the sense that it builds on earlier principles that either you don't understand or don't want to understand. If it ceased to build on those principles it ceases to be any form of Austrian economics.
My native language is one of the Scandinavian ones; however I'm not an ethnic Scandinavian.
I have difficulty discussing topics that have different meanings of words than from ordinary logic and reason. If you need to follow a certain dogma or orthodoxy then discussion becomes meaningless for those outside. To me it’s like debating about whether the earth is flat or not. Debating how many angels can fit on the head of a pin. I was educated and trained in law and economics so for me logic and reason was core required skill sets. I understand the need to clarify the meaning of words but in no logical interpretation can restriction=prohibition unless it’s dogma.
Further everything is a continuum; nothing is static, not even Austrian Economics. For it to be static there has to be truths that are unchangeable and eternal. There are none! (Unless you believe in metaphysical concepts such as God and/or absolute morals! The existence of God and absolute morals cannot be proven or disproven. That discussion on metaphysics should therefore take place at a theological seminary/ philosophy class, not in a discussion on Economics.)
In Macro Economics there is no eternal truths only temporary knowledge. Macro Economy and Austrian Economics is not science it’s only a way to describe the world. I dislike Keynesianism, Marxism and the later Chicago School that tried to find a grand all encompassing theory. It is doomed to fail. Human interaction is to complex and that is why came to Austrian Economics. It seemed to me to hold the most rational and logical explanations as well as it seemed to be based on the science of human behavior, Behaviorism. It also dealt more on the Micro level and all but dismissed Macro.
Kenneth Rogoff and Greg Mankiw are two leading US economists that are neo-Keynesians that synthesize Austrian and Chicago School with Keynesian theory if I understand it correctly. Below read about Rogoffs new book as well as a new book about the problems with the Chicago School.
Anarchy and a total free market have existed? Where and when? Nozick didn’t argue for Anarchy he dissected different forms of societies. It was in fact from his discussions that I came to the conclusion that anarchy and the absolute free market were pure theoretical and philosophical constructs.
I agree that from a theoretical standpoint there will be no shortage of work if people are willing to accept any wages but it’s like Peak Oil, oil will never run out because the last barrel will cost trillions of dollars. My arguments in the discussion are from the fact that the welfare state is here to stay and is huge. I also argue from the point that there already is massive state intervention in immigration, from a point of Status Quo i.e. a Keynesian situation. Austrian Economics have very little to say about that other than from a theoretical perspective. We disagree on the need for restriction on unskilled immigration.
I argue in reality, what is, and you argue from an Ivory Tower position of theoretical and philosophy perspective i.e. what ought to be. Let’s agree to disagree and end this discussion.
1. New book “This Time it is Different: Eight Centuries of Financial Folly” By Carmen M. Reinhart and Kenneth S. Rogoff reviewed in The American Interest November/December issue 2009 by Harold James in the article ”Recession Regression”.
”One of the fallouts of the global financial crisis, especially after the collapse of Lehman Brothers in September 2008, has been the questioning of the credibility of much of what passes for economic science, whether delivered by the mathematical adepts of sophisticated financial modeling in the business world or by academia.
This kind of economics promised a rational world of ever-increasing prosperity and stability. It was rather dismissive of economic history, which was cast off as an obsolete discipline based on old-fashioned, low-technology techniques. The only value economists saw in history was as a mine for microeconomic data that could be fed into complex mathematical models. By contrast, economic history (which is often rather gloomy) now looks rather more interesting and important. Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff have delivered a powerful and eloquent statement explaining why. ”
In the same issue M. Davidson author writes about his coming book ”Reality be Damned: The Legacy of Cicago School of Economics” about the danger of Great Ideas in Macro Economy such as Marxism, Keynsianism and later day Chicago School. The book is to be printed in 2010 and its name is ”Chicago Economics and the Origin of the Financial Crisis”
The Chicago School’s basic assumptions about human nature and the intersection of economic and political life were not doctrinaire at the start, and they may have been in that day a useful warning against then-fashionable tendencies toward planned economies, the hubris of social engineering and assumptions of ultimate convergence between socialist and capitalist economies. But ironically, as economics asserted itself as an independent science, divorced from its partner, political philosophy, it became more politically entangled than ever. Modern politicians searched for the expertise necessary to manage a changing modern economy in the Chicago School and found an empty closet. Once it abandoned its political concerns with economic power, Chicago theory, with its axioms of profit maximization, perfect information and self-correcting markets, had no advice to limit the downside risks of economic and financial disaster. The fruitful blending of social and economic concerns pioneered by Simons may not be suitable to a modern economy, but his concern about the dangers of centralizing economic power remains an issue that is ignored by the Chicago School. Doctrine supplanted healthy intellectual doubt, theoretical purity trumped common sense and historical memory, acolytes took over from masters, and a different kind of irrational exuberance was the result. We’re all now paying the price.
Just found this qoute :
"Anarchism misunderstands the real nature of man. It would be practicable only in a world of angels and saints" - Ludwig von Mises
Gotta love Mises. LOL
pessimism - the shedding of ones own inabilities upon others
Homo Illuminatus?: Just found this qoute : "Anarchism misunderstands the real nature of man. It would be practicable only in a world of angels and saints" - Ludwig von Mises Gotta love Mises. LOL
Contemporary ancaps don't argue that ancap will rid the world of evil men. We advocate marketizing security.
Read http://mises.org/Community/forums/p/12088/270283.aspx#270283
Homo Illuminatus?:. For it to be static there has to be truths that are unchangeable and eternal. There are none!
But there are constants. Unless evolution says other wise human action is purposeful. Refuting praxeology cannot be done while staying logically consistent and not falling subject to a particular logical fallacy. You can choose to not believe this and continue to be in a state of ignorance, and be 'awed' but this ignorance but your opinion doesn't discredit our argument at all.
Homo Illuminatus?: In Macro Economics there is no eternal truths only temporary knowledge. Macro Economy and Austrian Economics is not science it’s only a way to describe the world. I dislike Keynesianism, Marxism and the later Chicago School that tried to find a grand all encompassing theory. It is doomed to fail. Human interaction is to complex and that is why came to Austrian Economics. It seemed to me to hold the most rational and logical explanations as well as it seemed to be based on the science of human behavior, Behaviorism. It also dealt more on the Micro level and all but dismissed Macro.
This seems to show you haven't done as much reading on Austrian economics as you previously stated. We don't necessarily make a distinction between macro and micro other than making a distinction between big and large. The principles are the same. Multiplying 2 times 100 is the same as multiplying 2 times 1. You still get double, though the quantities may differ.
Homo Illuminatus?: Macro Economy and Austrian Economics is not science it’s only a way to describe the world. I dislike Keynesianism, Marxism and the later Chicago School that tried to find a grand all encompassing theory
We do though. The difference is our 'all encompassing theories' are logically consistent, unlike all the other schools of thought that you mentioned where empiricism runs rampant and manipulates their ideological thoughts at whim.
Homo Illuminatus?:Anarchy and a total free market have existed?
Arguing to Ignorance
http://mises.org/Community/blogs/brainpolice/archive/2008/10/09/avoiding-the-argument-from-history-and-normality.aspx
The fact that you can buy a magazine on the way to work and that fresh milk magicallty appears at the grocery store every morning is a legitimate example that anarchy works. More so the fact that the market is fundamentally the economic root of all prosperity on earth. You have to prove to us that removing the market would net greater prosperity. Untill then all the evidence you need is around you. The cloths you wear, the food you eat, your entertainment, your work are all examples of anarchy working.
It's essentially irrefutable unless you reject the market like some schools of thought do. Markets are anarchy by default.
http://mises.org/Community/forums/p/12252/272131.aspx#272131
Homo Illuminatus?:It was in fact from his discussions that I came to the conclusion that anarchy and the absolute free market were pure theoretical and philosophical constructs.
In the 19th century slavery was globally accepted for a time. Your argument in their context would have essentially equated to this. Since slavery has always been and we see no examples of it not beeing, therefore we should just submit unto it's existence as somehow being justified. We shouldn't make a concious effort to raise awareness of it's contridictions.
You essentially reject the fact that man can improve and would prefer to take the status-quo route since thats all you know. Had we been in the 19th century you may be here arguing against doing away with slavery.
Homo Illuminatus?: Austrian Economics have very little to say about that other than from a theoretical perspective.
On the contrary. You still show that you lack much reading regarding praxeology.
Praxeology seems to be an economist/philosopher trying to be a behavior psychologist. Economists are notoriously for trying to be psychologists. Economic behavior is behavior but still human behavior and best explained by the science of human behavior, Skinners Behaviorism. If you want to see how seriously wrong economists can go when they try to be psychologist just look upon the newfangled discipline of "Behavioral Economics" an attempt to reintroduce old school Keynesianism and/or central planning in form of the Enlightened Choice Architect. Nearly pseudo science!
Praxeology is a start to explain human economic behavior but it is a rudimentary explanation compared to Skinners Behaviorism (Radical Behaviorism). As far as I know it Hayek’s praxeology has not been upheld in psychological research on human behavior. It’s a very useful tool to start with and that was my main reason to start looking to Austrian Economics. I saw it as a rudimentary for of the science of human behavior. You might compare Mises/Hayek to Freud. Maybe a more easy to understand comparison is astrology to astronomy or alchemy to chemistry. The other reason was that Austrian Economics started out with individual behavior that then could be multiplied. It didn’t do top down.
My argument is not against praxeology but against the use of metaphysical concepts such as absolute morality in economic debate. We can never know the origins of morality only see the status it has today. However we are just as we speak starting to find out the origins of morality through genetic research, neuroscience, neuro- and evolutionary psychology. Soon we will be able to find in our genes and brains if there is such thing as constant morality. But until then the vote is out.
Apparently when it comes to anarchy and anarcho-capitalism we are talking at cross purposes. I’m talking about a society and economy totally based on anarchy and anarcho-capitalism. You are talking about economic microcosms such as newspaper delivery. What has the abolishment of slavery to do with the abolishment of the total structure of society? Slavery was a miniscule part of the states use of force. It was disgraceful but still an anomaly.
Correction:
The second reason I started looking into Austrian Economics was that the started by the individual and built from there, not top down.
The comparision is between praxeaology and the scince of human behavior, Behaviorism.
Homo Illuminatus?:Praxeology seems to be an economist/philosopher trying to be a behavior psychologist.
no!
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
Praxeology is not phsychiatry or behavioralism. Praxeology does not seek to manipulate human behavior or to address which human behavior is 'wrong' and 'right'. Unlike the mysticism commony practice in today's pharmaceutical industry.
Praxeology is not concerned with these things. it is not concerned if someone is delusional ect... At some point you'll stop exhausting us with these arguments and go look it up. =p
Human Action:However, psychology can never demonstrate the validity of a praxeological theorem. It may show that some people or many people let themselves be influenced by certain motives. It can never make evident that all human action is necessarily dominated by a definite categorial element which, without any exception, is operative in every instance of action.
Human Action:It is precisely this which distinguishes the general theory of human action, praxeology, from psychology. The theme of psychology is the internal events that result or can result in a definite action. The theme of praxeology is action as such. This also settles the relation of praxeology to the psychoanalytical concept of the subconscious. Psychoanalysis too is psychology and does not investigate action but the forces and factors that impel a man toward a definite action. The psychoanalytical subconscious is a psychological and not a praxeological category.
Homo Illuminatus?:My argument is not against praxeology but against the use of metaphysical concepts such as absolute morality in economic debate
Ancaps will often use ethics or morals to defend their viewpoint, but there is also an economic argument that is pro ancap as well. This is where Austrian Economics enters. Accepting the market works is essentially accepting that anarchy works.
The utilitarian view however is that whatever is most economical is somehow morally justified. This is not the angle of ancaps. We do not argue the sacrifice of one to save a million. Their ethical arguments are developed differently.
But I wouldn't recommend getting into the ethics or moral debate with them, you won't win.
Homo Illuminatus?:. I’m talking about a society and economy totally based on anarchy and anarcho-capitalism. You are talking about economic microcosms such as newspaper delivery.
Originally y our argument was a supportive argument for welfarism based on an traditionalist ideology. Now it seems to have changed, in fact you almost seem like a different person posting. Still I'd like to point out that a newspaper delivery service is another example of anarchy working. The fact that you ignore this inconvenient fact is your misfortune.
Homo Illuminatus?:What has the abolishment of slavery to do with the abolishment of the total structure of society?
it was an analogy showing how your line of reasoning was faulty. You apparently missed it. My point was that arguing from tradition is a fallacy.
filc:Unlike the mysticism commony practice in today's medical industry.
Medical industry should be pharmaceutical industry. Can't edit....
Homo Illuminatus?:My native language is one of the Scandinavian ones; however I'm not an ethnic Scandinavian.
Which one? Doesn't really make a difference since they all read the same.
Did you get someone else to write this post? I don't mean this in a hostile manner but they way in which it is written is different, and so is the attention to spelling.
Homo Illuminatus?:I have difficulty discussing topics that have different meanings of words than from ordinary logic and reason.
What words are you talking about?
Homo Illuminatus?:If you need to follow a certain dogma or orthodoxy then discussion becomes meaningless for those outside.
That depends. The burden of proof is for you to prove praxeology or Austrian economics wrong. Which is quite silly since what you supposedly believe is Austrian Economics.
Homo Illuminatus?: I understand the need to clarify the meaning of words but in no logical interpretation can restriction=prohibition unless it’s dogma.
I understand the need to clarify the meaning of words but in no logical interpretation can restriction=prohibition unless it’s dogma.
Really? This is why I bring up the language thing.
Prohibition is a synonym of restriction. http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/prohibition
Also, if you disagree with that, check out their definitions.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/prohibition
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/restriction
Thats all I can handle right now.
100 % restriction is equal to prohibition but partial restriction is not prohibition according to logic and even by common daily use.
That is why i asked you yours and/or the Asustrian definition of restriction. So are you defining any restriction as prohibition or only 100 % restriction as prohibition? Or is it so defined by Hayek, Mises or by other Austrian scholars?
I can recommend the Science and Math search engine WolframAlpha. Wikipedia is good but sometimes inconsistent and facts can be sketchy.
From Scientific search engine www.WolframAlpha.com
Prohibition
action | the action of prohibiting or inhibiting or forbidding (or an instance thereof)
edict | a decree that prohibits something
law | a law forbidding the sale of alcoholic beverages
refusal | refusal to approve or assent to
time period | the period from 1920 to 1933 when the sale of alcoholic beverages was prohibited in the United States by a constitutional amendment
(5 meanings)
Synonyms
action | forbiddance | inhibition
edict | ban | proscription
time period | prohibition era
Restriction
regulating | an act of limiting or restricting (as by regulation)
restraint | the act of keeping something within specified bounds (by force if necessary)
rule | a principle that limits the extent of something
(3 meanings)
regulating | limitation
restraint | confinement
rule | limitation
The difference in writing style is that this took me 1 hr to write and edit that post and i wrote it in MS Word and then pasted it to Mises.org.
Most of the other ones Ii write in chat style, real time and directly on Mises.org i.e. I write as it goes with very little editing and spell check.
Homo Illuminatus?:100 % restriction is equal to prohibition but partial restriction is not prohibition according to logic and even by common daily use.
The same flaws of 100% restriction happens at 1% restriction. The consequences of that restriction is reflected by the % that it is restricted. From all out black market to re-directing market investments, to consumer purchasing decisions, to all kinds of economic problems.
To be sure however partial restriction is still restriction and still produces a net loss to the economy as a whole.
The restrictions in and of themselves are counter-productive to economic output. But whats worse is the consumer must pay the coercer to upkeep these restrictions so not only are they at a loss for general economic production they must fund a compulsory monopoly to maintain the restrictions. It's basically a double punch to the face.
@Flic,
Your interpretation is that 1 % restriction equals 100 % restriction i.e. prohibition. It is interesting but my second question you did not answer is what the Austrian School has to say about it. Do it also equate 1 % restriction with 100 % restriction i.e. prohibition?
Homo Illuminatus?: @Flic, Your interpretation is that 1 % restriction equals 100 % restriction i.e. prohibition. It is interesting but my second question you did not answer is what the Austrian School has to say about it. Do it also equate 1 % restriction with 100 % restriction i.e. prohibition?
No thats not what I said at all. I said that 1% restrictions will have consequences just as 100% restriction has consequences. The degree and sometimes the type of consequence differs. I even went so far as to giving you examples. Examples include
Consequences and degrees of consequences changes based on the degree and type of restriction. I'd prefer not to repeat myself if possible.
Austrian's have written entire books about this. Rather then employeeing us a free private tutor go buy Economics in One Lesson. Hazlitt explains how various types of restrictions in the aggregate harms an economy as opposed to benefits.
Homo Illuminatus?: The difference in writing style is that this took me 1 hr to write and edit that post and i wrote it in MS Word and then pasted it to Mises.org. Most of the other ones Ii write in chat style, real time and directly on Mises.org i.e. I write as it goes with very little editing and spell check.
Thank you for the explanation.
A friend of mine sent me this yesterday as an example of the existance of an quasi-anarco state. The Early American West http://mises.org/journals/jls/3_1/3_1_2.pdfPersonally I'm not so certain it applies for societies larger than 200 individuals. I personally believe that pure anarchy works in groups with less than 200 individuals. 200 individuals is the capacity a human beings brain has for having close relations with i.e. can know everybody and therefore know all these individuals preferences. In fact I read in a research journal that the maximum address book size of any individual is 200-250. It is also how most workplaces are organized. The issue of the state and its organization is as with the necessity to work hard for survival. The larger the group that cooperate the less need for hard works however the need for organization increases. Larger groups than 200 requires some kind of outside force to get the individuals to conform to group norms i.e. the norms that the individuals in the group is in agreement about. In a group of 200 it is possible to get consensus without force. When the group evolves in some kind of societal order of larger magnitude all the trappings of the state emerge. Military often in the form of an aristocracy, a supreme leader that need to legitimize his rule by being chosen by god who leads to the necessity of priest and a code of personal conduct and law codified in a religious tract eg. “The Old Testament”. If you do not conform the king can kill you and if you behave immorally (not according to the codified morals) you go to hell. The ultimate punishment that gets everybody to conform. This tells me that a society that is larger than 200 individuals cannot be formed on a voluntary anarchist basis. I have not read the text yet but most townships and communities in the Old West, was if I don’t remember it incorrectly, often under 200 individuals. In larger townships the cattle barons ruled or the salon keepers/business men ruled. As we cannot take back 10,000 years of human evolution/development in particular and the last 200 years in general I personally believe that for a libertarian the foremost cause should be to limit the growth of government, not debating theories of anarchy or the possibility of an anarchic state. This is done in my opinion twofold. Fight against taxes and for deregulation with fervor. But that is only my 2 cents worth.
The issue of the state and its organization is as with the necessity to work hard for survival. The larger the group that cooperate the less need for hard works however the need for organization increases. Larger groups than 200 requires some kind of outside force to get the individuals to conform to group norms i.e. the norms that the individuals in the group is in agreement about. In a group of 200 it is possible to get consensus without force. When the group evolves in some kind of societal order of larger magnitude all the trappings of the state emerge. Military often in the form of an aristocracy, a supreme leader that need to legitimize his rule by being chosen by god who leads to the necessity of priest and a code of personal conduct and law codified in a religious tract eg. “The Old Testament”. If you do not conform the king can kill you and if you behave immorally (not according to the codified morals) you go to hell. The ultimate punishment that gets everybody to conform.
This tells me that a society that is larger than 200 individuals cannot be formed on a voluntary anarchist basis. I have not read the text yet but most townships and communities in the Old West, was if I don’t remember it incorrectly, often under 200 individuals. In larger townships the cattle barons ruled or the salon keepers/business men ruled.
As we cannot take back 10,000 years of human evolution/development in particular and the last 200 years in general I personally believe that for a libertarian the foremost cause should be to limit the growth of government, not debating theories of anarchy or the possibility of an anarchic state.
This is done in my opinion twofold. Fight against taxes and for deregulation with fervor.
But that is only my 2 cents worth.
Homo Illuminatus, your breaking my balls. I almost want to beat my head against the wall. Read the following excruciatingly carefully.
If you make the the possession of marijuana legal, but the purchase and sale of it illegal, then you have prohibition against the sale and purchase of marijuana. 100% restriction. The words are synonyms in this context.
I understand that with regards to the entire industry of marijuana there is not prohibition, however THERE IS still prohibition with the respect to the sale and purchase of it. Do you see how important context is?
Do you now understand?
Read your definition. The act of forbidding. Are you trying to tell me, that making the sale and purchase of marajuana illegal is not the act of forbidding the sale and purchase and marajuana, the same as, prohibting the sale and purhase and sale of marajuana? Are you realyl really really trying to argue this?
Because your skwed interepreation of prohibtion which you haven't really clearly stated is, Prohibition is the act of forbidding something and all things attached to it. e.g if you made a law saying no immigrants allowed, from your perspectvie this is a prohibtion on immigration. However, what you fail to see, is that if you only say "white people cannot immigrate to the states" that is a prohibtion against white people.
I beg you, after reading this 10 times, admit your wrong. Accept it. The above completely proves it beyond a reasonable doubt.
Homo Illuminatus?:Wikipedia is good but sometimes inconsistent and facts can be sketchy.
Quote where I used wikipedia. Please.
Homo Illuminatus?:So are you defining any restriction as prohibition or only 100 % restriction as prohibition? Or is it so defined by Hayek, Mises or by other Austrian scholars?
As far as I am aware, I'm using the standard definition in the dictionary.
too much "...personally I believe."
Also, assuming the old west is the only example of quasi-anarchy (which it isn't) and that all towns had under 200 people is not a logical proof (I thought you were well versed in logic?) that the quasi-anarchy cannot support towns with over 200 people.
Furthermore the posts portarys a large deal of ignorance with regards to history. Centralized states with the degree of control they have to id is a new invention. They did not have such power at such times.
Homo Illuminatus?:Larger groups than 200 requires some kind of outside force to get the individuals to conform to group norms i.e.
This statement is unproved and like almost all (if not the entirety) of the post is opinion.
So we agree that partial restriction is not prohibition. We agree that all restriction poses costs. For me it means that if the gains from restriction are larger than the cost, restriction can be used. Gains is measured both in increased freedom and income.
To get back to the question of unskilled and uneducated immigration (the issue of definition is not discussed here). I propose the opposite of further restriction. I propose the opposite of more restriction i.e. more liberalization and less restriction than today. I propose free immigration only restriction of the unskilled and uneducated. The unskilled and uneducated are already today prohibited from entering the US and Sweden.
This will lead to several beneficial consequences. The whole immigration industrial complex will be vastly reduced. There will be very little need for a large bureaucracy. The US will have a much better educated and globally competitive workforce. Illegal immigrants will not be worse off since immigration laws have not changed only being enforced. .
This means freedom has increased, costs have been reduced and government bureaucracy and force has been drastically diminished.
Do you have a problem with that? (I’m talking about the situation before and after, what is. Not what ought to be!)
filc: filc:Unlike the mysticism commony practice in today's medical industry. Medical industry should be pharmaceutical industry. Can't edit....
Sorted for you
The difference between libertarianism and socialism is that libertarians will tolerate the existence of a socialist community, but socialists can't tolerate a libertarian community.
Homo Illuminatus?:So we agree that partial restriction is not prohibition.
No it is. Lets be carful not to get into a semantical debate.
Homo Illuminatus?:To get back to the question of unskilled and uneducated immigration
You cannot objectively define unskilled or uneducated. Any definition of that sort is entirely arbitrary. Also latin immigrants were no more unskilled or uneducated then immigrants in the past, despite what report says. You report indirectly makes a claim that somehow Mexico is filled with retards. They have universities, they have schools.
Homo Illuminatus?: I propose free immigration only restriction of the unskilled and uneducated.
And how will your committee's decide who gets in? This sounds like a recipe for corruption. Not too mention the fascistic nature of such an idea.
If unskilled laborers are entering our country its because there IS a demand for that labor. Restricting them from entering doesnt fix the problem of that demand needing to be filled.
Homo Illuminatus?:This will lead to several beneficial consequences. The whole immigration industrial complex will be vastly reduced. There will be very little need for a large bureaucracy.
All you have done is altered the bureaucracy. You didn't shrink it. You change one process for another. Now were going to have comittees and lines of immigrants taking tests at the border?
Homo Illuminatus?: The US will have a much better educated and globally competitive workforce. Illegal immigrants will not be worse off since immigration laws have not changed only being enforced. .
You assume that we are incapable of competing globally because of our education. You say that 3rd world countries are bring us down. Ironically IT IS 3RD WORLD COUNTRIES THAT ARE OUT COMPETING US.
Homo Illuminatus?:This means freedom has increased, costs have been reduced and government bureaucracy and force has been drastically diminished.
What how? How has anything become more free or lowered costs? You cannot prove that your system would lower costs. Your system we derived entirely arbitrarily.
Homo Illuminatus?:Do you have a problem with that? (I’m talking about the situation before and after, what is. Not what ought to be!)
I have a problem with wishful thinking being argued as reality or fact.
Why is it that everyone person with strong political beliefs willingly decides to stay ignorant of economics. They come out of the word works as if they were omniscient or something and that they had the prefect solution for all. They do no research, no homework, and argue with anyone who has. They must look at themselves as infallible.
It is a complete waste of time to discuss a thing, such as praxeology, that you have not even studied.
@Caley Kibbin,
To discuss socialism, communism and Keynesianism as well as praxeology you need not be a scholar of the subject. In such case most of the posters on these pages should stop discussing socialism and Keynesianism immediately.
Maybe you can answer the question below from the Blog since you are such a great scholar of praxeology?
Multiple choice question, with follow-up:In Human Action, Ludwig von Mises describes "praxeology" as:A. a theory of human actionB. a science of human actionC. a branch of knowledgeD. A and BE. B and CF. A and CG. A, B, and CIf you answered A, B, or C defend that interpretation of what Mises meant by "praxeology."If you answered D, E, F, or G, write an essay that explores whether those descriptions are consistent or in tension with each other and then use that analysis to shed light on one point of contention between Austrians and the mainstream and one point of contention among the various debates within Austrian economics.
Human Action is an axiom. Socialism, Communism and Keynesianism are not parallel ideologies to praxeology. Praxeology is not an ideology. Praxeology however, encompasses the application of Socialism, Communism, Keynesianism, Capitalism, ect.......
And you have posted a red herring. Please come back and try again thanks!
Are you for real? "Human Action" an axiom? I've never heard such lot of crock.
Mises explains his view on economic theory in the form of Human Action. Mises theory is not hard science. The only near science on human action is the science of behavior, behaviorism. Behaviorism explains how humans learn and how humans behave in all different situations. Economic action is only one of those actions but underlying it all are human behavior as explained by behaviorism.
A like Austrian Economics for the reason it was a rudimentary form of behaviorism. If Austrian Economics manages to become the science of Human Action by synthesizing Mises "Human Action" with behaviorism i.e. keep the parts that align with behavior science and kick out that that has been disproven by behavior science it will rule the day.
Behaviorism is not about mental decease, healing the mentally ill. It is about describing how any species learn and behave in different situations. Behaviorism can be used as a method to discern which behaviors give the best results and to align behavior to get the results.
Behaviorism is a tool to achieve the results you want. However underlying it is Human Action, human behavior with it restrictions. Marxism, Keynesianism and Neoclassic theory all try to change human action in ways that is not “natural” for humans to behave. Austrian Economics is so far the closest economic theory to how humans behave albeit rudimentary. The science of human behavior is also in its very early stages but much more advanced than Mises Human Action..
However the debate on Mises.org reminds me of the sectarian debate my Maoist friends had during my high school years. Who really was most orthodox and followed Mao’s “true” meaning. Those that did not follow dogma were dubbed heretics and viciously attacked and shunned. I went to one of the better high school in my area but unfortunately it was also the most socialist of all high schools in our country. Socialist, no they were hard-line Leninists or Maoists. I disliked Marxism in part beause of my Baltic heritage. I had in real life seen how "real" socialism fast becomes totalitarian and came to detest it with a vengeance in high school and vowed never to join anything that was sectarian. Mises.org is fast in my opinion becoming very sectarian indeed. Maybe it has to do with Ayn Rand and her following, her and her followers’ extreme sectarianism? Mises and Rand were brilliant but I’m having second thoughts about their latter day followers
Homo Illuminatus?:Are you for real? "Human Action" an axiom? I've never heard such lot of crock
Ah yes...human action is axiomatic. You are giving a nice example of it right now.
Homo Illuminatus?:Mises explains his view on economic theory in the form of Human Action. Mises theory is not hard science. The only near science on human action is the science of behavior, behaviorism. Behaviorism explains how humans learn and how humans behave in all different situations. Economic action is only one of those actions but underlying it all are human behavior as explained by behaviorism.
Are you talking about thymology? Behaviorism is response to stimuli and Mises argued against it in the first part of Human Action.
Add-on: Hooray for quotable Mises!
'Behaviorism proposes to study human behavior according to the methods developed by animal and infant psychology. It seeks to investigate reflexes and instincts, automatisms and unconscious reactions. But it has told us nothing about the reflexes that have built cathedrals, railroads, and fortresses, the instincts that have produced philosophies, poems, and legal systems, the automatisms that have resulted in the growth and decline of empires, the unconscious reactions that are splitting atoms.'
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Laughing Man: Homo Illuminatus?:Are you for real? "Human Action" an axiom? I've never heard such lot of crock Ah yes...human action is axiomatic. You are giving a nice example of it right now.
To expand on what LM has said, human action is an axiom because you cannot disprove it. If you attempt to disprove the axiom of human action, you must act, therefore proving that human action is axiomatic.
Political Atheists Blog
krazy kaju:To expand on what LM has said, human action is an axiom because you cannot disprove it. If you attempt to disprove the axiom of human action, you must act, therefore proving that human action is axiomatic
Absolutely. Thank you for the expansion.
krazy kaju: Laughing Man: Homo Illuminatus?:Are you for real? "Human Action" an axiom? I've never heard such lot of crock Ah yes...human action is axiomatic. You are giving a nice example of it right now. To expand on what LM has said, human action is an axiom because you cannot disprove it. If you attempt to disprove the axiom of human action, you must act, therefore proving that human action is axiomatic.
What if am not trying to disprove it, I just happen not to act?
Duh.....
scineram: What if am not trying to disprove it, I just happen not to act?
What if gravity doesn't apply to me?
scineram:What if am not trying to disprove it, I just happen not to act?
Choosing not to act is an action in itself.
I would expect that after such a long time of posting on these forums, you would have at least attempted to read Human Action or MES.
I guess I have no real need to respond to Homo's statements. Thanks dudes.
Ok guys, that was one huge super tangent, and I understand why we debated it and how it was connected to the topic at hand but lets try to return to... "The Myth of Scandinavian Socialism" .
Cheers.
I would very much like to get back to the discussion about "The Myth of Swedish Socialism".
I am extremely confused by the discussion that has been going on. 1 % restriction equals 100 % prohibition. 1 % of force equals 100 % force. So then the logical conclusion would be that 1 % central planning equals socialism.
I think that before we go any further a common understanding of what socialism means is in ti splace or at least that everybody that talks about it states hsi or hers views on the subject.
Personally I do no today know of any country or region that is socialist. The closest that have it on a voluntary basis and by elections is the Kerala region in India, run by pure communists. Kerala has the most educated population and one of the highest living standards in India. (When debating communism I always get Kerala thrown in my face as a success of socialism/communism.) China and Russia are to me as close to classic fascist states as you can get. They apply pure fascist corporatist economies.
The closest to an anarcho-capitalist state as far as it goes to business and economy is in my opinion Singapore.
The most free country when it comes to personal expression and freedom is Denmark. Their economy is freer than the US and Sweden but they have a humungous welfare state that requires humongous taxes 54 % of GDP.
So to get back to Sweden and in some ways Denmark and the Netherlands as they encompass what is popularly called the Scandinavian model. Norway and Finland is not normally included since they differ to a large degree. Norway because of its huge religiosity and dependence on natural resources and Finland because of its old dependence on Soviet-Russia.
So do you think Sweden is socialist and if so why?
My personal definition of socialism I have taken from former Swedish liberal party leader and winner of the Nobel prize in Economics Bertil Ohlin. Between the end of the second world war and until 1968 and from 1993 until today Sweden is a classic mixed economy. Between 1968 and 1993 Sweden had what Bertil Ohlin called “functional” socialism.
So can we agree upon the terminology ?
1. Classic socialism, Marx
2. Functional socialism as defined by Bertil Ohlin
3. Mixed economy aka. Keynesian
From Bertil Ohlin’s Memoirs “Socialistisk skordetid kom bort”(”The Socialists crop was never harvested”) 1940-1951 Bonniers 1975
Bertil Ohlin was not only a party leader but also a professor of Economics as well as Nobel Laureate. He won the prize for the Heckscher-Ohlin theorem. He was the founder of The Stockholm School of Economics a forerunner to Keynes:
From the memoir:
In particular, responsible liberalism saw it as a danger to the liberty of its citizens the development of the growth of an increasingly centralized political power. The SocialDemocrats [Swedish Big Government statists,] were always adherents of such practices that increased the political influence.
Only when a very strong case could be presented could we in Folkpartiet [Swedish Responsible liberal party] agree to such measures. We preferred makings laws that put a framework in place and with full freedom within this framework. The SocialDemocrats always wanted to increase what they called “the Societies influence” and minimized the individual’s right to self-determination both in private as well as in business life. Instead of the old “nationalization policy, pure socialism” we now saw on the horizon the beginnings of a new “central directive and regulation socialism” [functional socialism or non authoritarian fascism] emerging which, however – it must be stressed – was strongly opposed by us and the other parties in opposition and only developed very slowly after1948.
Illuminatus?:Their economy is freer than the US and Sweden but they have a humungous welfare state that requires humongous taxes 54 % of GDP.
So, Ohlin, a member of parliament, which controls the Bank of Sweden, was awarded a prize chosen by the Bank of Sweden.