Economics education is the way forward. Specious philosophical doctrines are nothing but a vicious distraction. Recognizing that doesn't give "statists & socialists the moral highground". Rather, it is a matter of shifting altogether from the moralist battleground (which is equally flat and muddy for all its spurious disputants) to the scientific battleground of economics, where the battle is fought over existential propositions that can actually be meaningfully affirmed or denied, and where the scientific case for capitalism is invincible.
Well said sir. Philosophy is a dead end, but the logic of economics is irrefutable; it settles all disputes.
"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."
Completely ignoring the fact that there exists seperate classes; ie. RULERS vs. RULED - doesn't come close to being any kind of coherent & successful strategy for liberty.
"VERY few (if any) people benefit from the interventionist state"
And yet so many support it. Both methods are permissble to alter that perception, economic education - as well as political philosophy, to dismiss either entirely is beyond dumb. You find one more convincing than the other... so? Countless others, and I'd contend the majority, find ethical considerations more so. Don't throw out the baby with the bath water.
Would you support central planning if it was more efficient than freedom?
"Rather, it is a matter of shifting altogether from the moralist battleground (which is equally flat and muddy for all its spurious disputants) to the scientific battleground of economics, where the battle is fought over existential propositions that can actually be meaningfully affirmed or denied, and where the scientific case for capitalism is invincible."
Ahh... the exact same applies to Libertarianism. I'll be needing to see your refutation of argumentation ethics some time... No doubt it will be better than the mere "lol" Liberte could muster.
Thankfully it's not.
Yeah. But that doesn't answer the question.
I don't know. We're talking about an alternate reality. It would be hard to support freedom if it meant supporting famine, plague, ect. But the point is that Mises and Hayek's calculation/coordination arguments turned 99.99% of the Marxists into neoclassical economists. It entirely obliterated their framework, and today, even the statists reject communism (though they support fascism). It made no appeal to ethics. It simply revealed the fact that their system, based on the elimination of private property, was untenable.
I can't think of a better way to support freedom then by showing that it's the only tenable human condition. Talking about the differences between persuasion and coercion simply doesn't convince anyone.
Get a grip, I wasn't attacking your Moloch. Sheez.
"You, on the other hand, can't even convince the likes"
... You on the other hand, can't even convince the likes of Mr1001Nights.
"and I'm not saying that there's no room for a vigorous philosophical defense of freedom."
Good. Because there is. I'm glad we've got no real disagreement then. The folks who contend as such are lost.
"I'm just saying that economics is much more effective in the vast majority of cases."
Your appeal to God probably makes you appear fantastically inept when dealing and trying to convince folks in the philosophical sphere. So I have no doubt that what you've just said is very true, if only when applying to yourself.
Your appeal to God probably makes you appear fantastically inept when dealing and trying to convince folks in the philosophical sphere.
Is this supposed to be some kind of cheap shot? Do you think it will trigger an emotional response?
I don't see how you can get ethical theory out of economics. We all say Austrian economics is value-free yet how can we progress liberty through a value free science? Is economics no longer value free?
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Esuric,
You pulled off some low blows too. Come on admit it.
Putting the weight of the world on Conza because some people are not valuing freedom or private property enough to maintain it's integrity and viability, but would rather philosophically and maybe even practicially attack private property isn't an appropiate implication. Let's not forget praxeology.
And also you're trying to make a categorical distinction between economics and politics/ethics as if one is better than the other. How did you objectively come to that conclusion? I think the implication is that they go hand in hand.
Lilburne,
I think it would be helpful to understand this from Conza's perspective don't you think? I'm not talking about the current thought-experiment either. I mean let's take note of what Conza implies and maintains on the forum for the most part. Is it really that bad to maintain a civil society?
how can we progress liberty through a value free science?
I think the way it works is this: You grant the opposition that their goal is admirable, which it usually is. Free food for all etc. You then lay out the economic facts, that liberty gets closest to producing their goals, and slavery gets them further away. This is a value free science. You are not saying which goal is right or wrong, just which paths lead to which goals.
My humble blog
It's easy to refute an argument if you first misrepresent it. William Keizer
Smiling Dave,
That's a good answer. I know where you are coming from.
What do you think about my question to Lilburne? I think what you said leaves it unanswered.
That's a good answer. What do you think about my question to Lilburne? I think what you said leaves it unanswered.
Thanks for the positive feedback. Indeed I wasn't attempting to answer your q to Lilburne, it being over my head.
snowflake:Ahuh. Mises wrote in german. He probably wouldn't have been this unclear in english.
By rational he means purposeful.
So you're basically just saying "ha ha ha you all reject socialism but according to you socialism is rational so that makes you hypocrites".
Rational, purposeful, but nontheless sub optimal.
Im not trying to cover up my preferences for peace prosperity and freedom.
This may not have anything to do with big macs. It might mean sitting under a tree waiting for meditation his whole life.
And freedom socialism is slavery.
Fixed it for you! Thank me later!
Again, that socialism doesn't entail peace and prosperity is just your subjective opinion.
SOMEBODY hasn't read any Mises...
Edit: but seriously, take a few days to read Mises' Socialism, and you'll see the absurdity in your own statment. I dare you.
I Samuel 8
"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict
One does not even need to read Mises to see this at all, honestly. It just makes for better reading.
I wish this were the case. It is odd, I suppose, that it takes someone as brilliant as Mises to refute something as foolish as socialism.
I do think that reading Mises should be required reading though, particularly for anybody who maintains that it is just a "subjective opinion" that socialism doesn't entail "peace and prosperity." Give me break.
Jesse:I wish this were the case. It is odd, I suppose, that it takes someone as brilliant as Mises to refute something as foolish as socialism.
Don't play down their argument. There are many here, and everywhere, who cannot adequately explain why socialism fails. One of Mises's many gifts was finally being able to explode the fallacy in a coherent manner. He showed how it didn't work technically, leaving the emotions on the sidelines. I agree with Esuric's above point, the argument is won by technical merit in economics. We show where the blueprint fails. It's not making an ethical statement. It's not stating that socialism is wrong or evil, it's simply stating as a matter of fact that the technical blueprint will not output the final desired goal. It's like an architect being made aware of several dimensional flaws in his blueprints. There is no "moral" value involved, economics remains value-free.
For example, your neighbor may dream of creating a hover craft retrofitted from his jeep wrangler using balloon's. He may think he only needs one balloon to get his jeep to float. However, a simple lesson in physics will show him the technical flaws of his ways. He can continue his plan and likely look silly or die, or he concede his error and start over.
Now to answer Conza's point above. If it could be shown technically that socialism is more effecient then I'd be more then happy to jump on board. If we could some how eliminate scarcity and remove human action I'd be foolish to want to fight against it(Ofcoarse would I even be human at that point?). The truth is though that it would require us to stop being humans, and start being something entirely different.
My co-worker phrased it best when he said.
Him: "Socialism works great in theory".
ME: "No it doesn't".
Him: "Let me reword, Socialism works great in theory, if we are all robots".
ME: "Ahh yes indeed!"
Nien, robots would have no regard for moral implications, & ultimatley view socialism as inept, since it's primary motiviation is moral. A quick example would be the Borg Collective: are they inherently socialist, if they allow what could be considered inequality, if it is mathematically advanteagoues? Socialists would throw tomatoes en masse at the thought of a single ounce of inequality, whereas with robots would have no conception of inequality at all. They would go with whatever would work mathematically, which may or may not include socialism in a given situation.
Except the capitalists, special interest groups and individuals who benefit from the state... which is where ethics & political philosophy come into play.
No, they support interventionism for their special area, but are nonetheless dependent and have their interests aligned with the market economy.
Interventionism - state subsidies, decrees, prohibitions, etc. are not socialism. They are a hampered market economy. In Mises' terminology socialism is a totally different thing. Statism is not socialism. Only total state ownership of capital and originary factors of production can be considered socialism. The Soviet Union was not socialist.
“Socialism is a fraud, a comedy, a phantom, a blackmail.” - Benito Mussolini"Toute nation a le gouvernemente qu'il mérite." - Joseph de Maistre
Nitrodict:Socialists would throw tomatoes en masse at the thought of a single ounce of inequality, whereas with robots would have no conception of inequality at all.
It assumes robots hold the ability of subjective appraisal. The remarks between my co-worker and I were in humor. We didn't give it much scrutinity and i certainly did not think of the borg! [:)]
I totally agree with you. I don't think I'm playing down anyone's arguments, I'm just pointing out that socialism is such a failure, both logically and empirically, it is an interesting quirk of human beings that it takes someone like Mises to show us the truth. Don't you find this interesting?
JakobM:Socialism is "sub optimal" according to your arbitrary and subjective judgments of value. ... Again, that socialism doesn't entail peace and prosperity is just your subjective opinion.
The definitions of optimal, prosperity and peace are indeed subjective; ideally, you are to agree on these definitions prior to debate. How would you define optimal, prosperity and peace? I would say that, given how most people define these words, it is indeed true that anything but a free market is suboptimal, and it is only through voluntary trade that we prosper and can maintain a peaceful society.
Well, what do you mean by foolish? The socialist economists are anything but stupid. People tend to dismiss socialism as pure stupidity, but that's only because they are ignorant of the opposing argument (or partially ignorant). Many socialists have put forth clover and seemingly plausible arguments in favor of interventionism (they're still incorrect, but clever nonetheless). Stiglitz, for example, makes an argument where he attempts to show that high interest rates actually lead to malinvestments (moral hazard and adverse selection) as opposed to low interest rates.
Also, you have to realize that the counter-arguments were given to you. Brilliant men refuted socialist fallacies, and there is a historical record available to us. These arguments may seem obvious now, but they weren't at first. Those "obvious" refutations were economic breakthroughs, revolutions. I think you're taking too much for granted.
Nevertheless. Austria, in the 20s, faced extreme depression, mass inflation, the people were yearning for socialism, and they had a socialist political leader. Mises overcame all of this with pure logic, and appeals only to science.
I know that there have been many clever arguments in favor of socialism. But that's all that they are and ever will be — clever arguments. I'm not saying anything too outragous here; just that people have an amazing tendancey to be taken in by clever arguments. I'm reminded of a Bertrand Russel quote:
"What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence."
Hey cret. Get a life.
"does anyone here believe that the us has become more socialist??? if so, have things gotten worse??? have your incomes risen...have prices for many vital items gone down once adjusted for inflation??? do you find necesseties harder to come by??? has your lesiure life improved??? mp3 players that play for hours where an old portaqble cd player might not play an entire cd???? watching entire movies over a computer transmitted via wires. have these things happend within ever increasing socialism???"
hmm
yes, yes, no, yes, somewhat, dont have an ipod, yes but they have happened in spite of the increasing socialism, not because of it.
cret is a spammer. don't humor him.
I'd prefer to be a poor freeman, than a rich slave. Faith has nothing to do with it.
This elucidation may help in making my point. It kind of roughly eflects that of the movie Metropolis. There are two types of people (/general) in society, the thinkers (the only thing that matters is what they consider works, pragmatism etc.) and those with a heart (only thing that matters is what they consider is good, justice etc.).
There are three approachs that are possible:
Ron Paul advocates the latter and puts it into practice. There are those that appreciate his arguments, i.e the system is bankrupt it doesn't work. And there are those that appreciate his, taxation is theft arguments. He garners a vast level of support by appealing to something everyone can agree with at the same time. Effiecent & effective - just look at his success (how Stephan Moleyenux can deny this is beyond me, even more amusing is the fact that many listeners of his - first came to an apprescetion of these ideas through Ron Paul). Anyway, that's a digression - it's clear what the best approach is when dealing with what Ron is doing, spreading the message.
When it comes to individual one-on-ones, I believe people tend to sway or lean towards either pole (for whatever reason). It would naturally be smart to tailor the message to that individual, as I believe has been pointed out. Would it not be best to start with the combined (3rd approach), then try go from there? If they are a "thinker", you could focus on the economics side, what works, what wouldn't or can't... appeals to morality or ethics probably wouldn't be as convincing to this person.
And the same goes for the individual with the "heart", they believe ____ is "good" and they don't care if the state is used to achieve it be it the draft, equality etc. In fact - there ARE things that can only "work" and are more "effienct" via the state, and what prey tell is the response then? Since what works (means to their end) - is statism. What then, eh?
They both guide & compliment eachother. Both elements of human action. Both scientific.
Look, if you don't think your apt in one area or are far better at bringing it back to economics & convicing people that way - fine, I truely wish you a world of luck... just do us a favor & drop the delusional claim that political philosophy and essentially Libertarianism itself is a "vicious distraction".
Now, if that isn't what you meant by..: "Specious philosophical doctrines are nothing but a vicious distraction." I apologise. But if it isn't, then seriously what was the point of that? What philosophical doctrines are not specious then? Or are they all and that includes Libertarianism? So Hoppe, Rothbard, Block, Ron Paul... when they aren't doing economics - they're all wasting their time in a "vicious distraction". No? How else am I meant to understand that?
"No"
Yes - they do benefit actually, as you concede with: "for their special area". Yeah, obviously. It's just that every capitalist tends to have their own "special area".
Some of those "areas" also entail the stuff that has nothing to do with the market economy, i.e the ability to print money out of thin air.
"Interventionism - state subsidies, decrees, prohibitions, etc. are not socialism. They are a hampered market economy. In Mises' terminology socialism is a totally different thing. Statism is not socialism. Only total state ownership of capital and originary factors of production can be considered socialism. The Soviet Union was not socialist."
This is a red herring. What exactly is the point of needlessly interjecting with this? Well corporatism, soft fascism, I've have this discussion before. Nothing you just mentioned is enlightening at all. The point which kicked this off, is applicable to statism. There are numerous other forms of statism, why confine it to just one technical economic def. The point I made earlier still stands. Even in the Soviet Union; Rulers vs Ruled.
Sun. 10/04/25 13:49 EDT.post #75 JakobM:Ultimately you reject socialism because of arbitrary value judgements.Ultimately, I reject putting sugar in the gas tank because of arbitrary value judgements. JakobM:Only if you, by defintion, equate "socialism" to poverty and starvation,...Socialism is the means, poverty and starvation is the end.Socialism is the theory, poverty and starvation is the practice.Socialism is the dream, poverty and starvation is the reality.For some arbitrary reason, I value wealth and abundance more than poverty and starvation. Call me crazy! Nitroadict:It's been proven that state-socialism is unworkable, time & time again....but not, apparently, to enough people...yet.
JakobM:Ultimately you reject socialism because of arbitrary value judgements.
JakobM:Only if you, by defintion, equate "socialism" to poverty and starvation,...
Nitroadict:It's been proven that state-socialism is unworkable, time & time again.
History is a great teacher; unfortunately, many people are poor students.
ERO,
I don't have time right now to formulate and execute on my own an essay evaluating Hoppe's entire ArgEth theory. Like I told Conza, if you were to start a new thread with some concrete propositions that you think undermine my position, I would respond.
Democracy means the opportunity to be everyone's slave.—Karl Kraus.
Your analogy would only work if your lazy, "But what about Argumentation Ethics?" could even be considered a "swing". It can't.
Again, if you want something from me, give me something concrete to respond to that you think undermines my position, even if it's only a single paragraph, and I'll respond.
But I don't write monographs on cue.
Ultimately you reject socialism because of arbitrary value judgments. Ultimately, I reject putting sugar in the gas tank because of arbitrary value judgements.
Ultimately you reject socialism because of arbitrary value judgments.
The original premise holds true because Disneyland has outbid the competitor for the land use rights. When purchasing the land, Disneyland may have had a number of considerations such as; the future value of the land, plans for future expansion, income streams from rent or asa way to protect its brand. The fact they haven't yet sold the land for capital gain does not mean that the land is not being used for its most valuable use. The value of the land is apparently higher for Disneyland thanit is for its competitor.
Disneyland have a use for the land in mind and were prepared to outbid competitors. Are the competitors seeking to locate near Disneyland to get a free ride from locating near this icon of theme park entertainment? If so, Disneyland is merely protecting its brand. Disneyland has not used coercion to stop the competitor, they have only valued the land more highly than the competitor.
Thus the current use remains the most valuable use. The competitor they may feel aggrieved they were unprepared to pay a higher price. What the competitor seeks is a cheap ride on the back of Disneyland.
i dunno if it does or not. can it also mean to be everyones master??