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

How to Argue Like a Rothbardian

This post has 290 Replies | 19 Followers

Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,985
Points 90,430
hayekianxyz Posted: Wed, Jul 22 2009 8:29 AM

Remember, going into a debate, if you have Rothbard on your side, you are a priori correct. However, to ensure your victory in a debate, you can follow the lead of your masters Rothbard and Hoppe have set the standard for debate. If you want to "knock down" your opponent, take the following steps:

  1. Post your argument, be somewhat kind, if condescending. If the person disagrees with you, they're wrong, so it's warranted. Don't bother with sources, you can just make claims and if the person disagrees with your claims, they're wrong. Make sure you litter your post with Rothbard quotes, he was never wrong, so it stands to reason that quoting him mean you are never wrong. Don't bother with any other writers, you can invoke the God that Rothbard is. All other economists/ philosophers/ historians are nothing compared to that intellectual giant.
  2. Usually the statists won't be swayed by Rothbard's infallible arguments, if so then move on to the next step. If they do come to agreement, you've won, GJ.
  3. If the person disagrees, don't bother reading their argument in depth or charitably, it's just not worth it. The returns are too low, you'd be better off reading The Ethics of Liberty for the fifth time. Simply take the following steps: repeat your arguments, be even more condescending, on those issues where they disagree use italics and exclamation marks!!!! Make sure you underline the fact that everything you say is a priori. IF YOU REALLY NEED TO ADD CAPS FOR EFFECT, TO LET THEM KNOW THAT YOU ARE CORRECT, AND YOU KNOW IT. Meanwhile add yet more Rothbard quotations.
  4. If they agree with you following this, good job, if not move to the next step.
  5. If they still disagree keep asking how it is they they can't understand your perfect logic, it came from Rothbard after all. Questions such as "HOW CAN YOU NOT SEE THIS!?" and statements such as "it's so OBVIOUS!!" will make sure they're persuaded. Remember: you are correct, they are wrong. That is all there is too it. Don't give a charitable reading to their argument, if they look like they're saying something that makes sense, twist it. Purposefully if need be, you can't let third parties by persuaded by their moral blackness. Next they'll be denying that "A = A". We can't let it get there. if it looks like they're not making any sense, don't bother trying to make any sense out of it, they're wrong. AND YOU KNOW IT!
  6. By this stage, we're probably working with a lost cause. Be sure to let them and any third parties know it. Don't hesitate to point out that they're statists!!! Even if they call themselves anarchists, anybody who disagrees with you (about a uniform code of law, for example) is a statist. They're trying to destroy the movement. DO NOT LET THEM.
  7. Remember, a statist is the worst insult you can call somebody. Statists are always a priori wrong and evil. If they say things that contradict you, use any of the following insults (they're all synonomous at the end of the day): statist, Keynesian, monetarist, commie, socialist, positivist, empiricist, marxist, minarchist (and any more you can think of).
  8. Challenge them personally, remember, if they disagree with you, it's because it's already personal. Your logic is perfect, don't let anybody challenge that. If they disagree with you, don't hesitate to imply that they're on the pay roll of the state, and as a result, they would support it! Tell them that they're a priori evil. Next take their character into account: they're weak, they're compromisers, they're blind, they're arrogant, they're ignorant, they're stupid, they're misguided, they lack integrity, they're parasites (that's a really good one). They're all of these a priori, and perhaps some more. Tell them that you wouldn't let them near your children, they're socialists, so they'd kill your children at any chance they have. They'll also steal your furniture.
  9. Once we're at this stage, they're not going to be convinced. It's time for damage control. This part is difficult, so it's difficult to get this down to a science. However, if they advocate something, they're caught in a performative contradiction, they're denying that "A = A", they're denying that they're men qua men, they're denying that man's life is the standard of value, they're denying your right to life, they're saying that smoking is immoral, they're pro FRB, they're in favour of fraud, they're a conservative, they're a commie, they're murderers, they're denying REASON, they want to destroy civilization, they're government hacks, they're state lackeys etc.

A few more, general, pointers:

  • There are no "fellow travelers", you're a lone wolf. You can't be compromised, you're a scholar advancing liberty. Forget monetarists, free bankers, public choice theorists, institutional economists.
  • You are the true heir to Menger, there is only one line of thought faithful to his vision. Forget other "strands" of Austrian economics, they're heretics. They plan on bringing down the Austrian church school. 
  • Anybody who doesn't entirely agree, must come into line, lest they be purged.
  • Anybody who disagrees with your intepretation of Mises is wrong. Rothbard knew him better than anybody, better than his PhD students such as Kirzner even.
  • EVERY CRITICISM IS A STRAWMAN.
  • If you don't know something or can't find some facts, make it up, if it agrees with Rothbardian theory, it's true anyway.
  • Don't allow any criticisms or Rothbard, he was the One, he should be appreciated.

Allowed Authors:

  • Rothbard, all works.
  • Rand, all works (read carefully though)
  • Hoppe, all works (read carefully though)
  • Block, all works

Authors who should be avoided:

  • Mises (he can be ambiguous)
  • Hayek (he's a commie)
  • Boettke (heretic)
  • Selgin (he's in the employment of the FRS)
  • White (see above)
  • Yeager (he denied that Rothbard supported argumentation ethics, thus catching himself in a PERFORMATIVE CONTRADICTION!)
  • James Buchanan (he said the state was voluntary)
  • Gordon Tullock (see above)
  • Don Lavoie (I didn't want to name him, the fewer people that read this black sheep the better)
  • Steven Horwitz (see above)
  • Dave Prychitko (see above)
  • Israel Kirzner (he's OK, but he disagrees with Rothbard)
  • All other economics (they're evil, state apologists and just not as good as Rothbard).

Now for some quotes:

THE ONE:
"It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a 'dismal science.' But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance

What he really meant

THE ONE:
It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a 'dismal science.' But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while disagreeing with me."

 

"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"

Bob Dylan

  • | Post Points: 185
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 304
Points 6,045

Hahahahaha, I laughed so much with this!

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,850
Points 85,810

GilesStratton:
However, to ensure your victory in a debate, you can follow the lead of your masters Rothbard and Hoppe have set the standard for debate.

Weren't you a self-admitted Hoppeian?Is this one of those blood-crudling cries for attention? It seems like you have one every week now.

'Why can't we talk about the regression theory!?'

'Why can't we all believe that economics is a value-free discipline!?'

'Ouch mommy, the Rothbardians are hurting me because I say silly things!'

Honestly, apart from the aggrandizement of these blood-crudling cries, why do you stay here? Perhaps such behavior can be explained by reading Venus in Furs. Perhaps such metaphorical beatings excite you.

'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael

 

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,985
Points 90,430

Well given that this was a joke, I think I'm justified in telling you that you need to a priori CALM DOWN!

But yeah, I called myself a Hoppean. Then I learned a thing or two about a thing or two. Doesn't mean I don't still appreciate some of his insights, just, I think he's wrong on a lot of things and his argumentation ethics isa joke.

"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"

Bob Dylan

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,850
Points 85,810

GilesStratton:
Well given that this was a joke, I think I'm justified in telling you that you need to a priori CALM DOWN!

Everything that you seem to be saying is a joke these days and while I love humor, I have to ask...when are you actually going to say anything serious?

GilesStratton:
But yeah, I called myself a Hoppean. Then I learned a thing or two about a thing or two. Doesn't mean I don't still appreciate some of his insights, just, I think he's wrong on a lot of things and his argumentation ethics isa joke.

I think it is sub-par but has a tenacious spirit. There are better arguments for ethical systems of agent neutrality.

'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael

 

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 304
Points 6,045

It's nice to see people change their mind.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,850
Points 85,810

ivanfoofoo:

It's nice to see people change their mind.

What does that mean?

'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael

 

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,985
Points 90,430

Anarchist Cain:
I love humor

Clearly.

"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"

Bob Dylan

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,985
Points 90,430

Anarchist Cain:
when are you actually going to say anything serious?

It's not as if I've not tried. It's just, when I do, people out compete me using the methods outlined above. You see, I argue that fractional reserve banking is legitimate I'm called a fraudster, I argue that it's efficient and I get called a Keynesian. I argue that the market is not infallalible and that institutions may be necessary to correct "market failure" such a global warming or various other public goods issues I get called a "socialist" and a "statist". I argue that religion may be necessary for some of rational ethic and I get called a "nihilist" and a "religious nut" in the same breath.

I don't think I need continue.

"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"

Bob Dylan

  • | Post Points: 65
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,850
Points 85,810

GilesStratton:
It's not as if I've not tried. It's just, when I do, people out compete me using the methods outlined above. You see, I argue that fractional reserve banking is legitimate I'm called a fraudster, I argue that it's efficient and I get called a Keynesian. I argue that the market is not infallalible and that institutions may be necessary to correct "market failure" such a global warming or various other public goods issues I get called a "socialist" and a "statist". I argue that religion may be necessary for some of rational ethic and I get called a "nihilist" and a "religious nut" in the same breath.

These are all just titles given to you. If they only give you titles and not arguments...why should you care what they say?

GilesStratton:
I don't think I need continue.

Then why are you still here?

'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,985
Points 90,430

Anarchist Cain:
These are all just titles given to you. If they only give you titles and not arguments...why should you care what they say?

I don't care, it's just tiring.

Anarchist Cain:
Then why are you still here?

To teach people who to beat down socialists in debates.

"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"

Bob Dylan

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,221
Points 34,090
Moderator

I think the only thing that would make this better is if it were in the checkbox survey format. 

 

Coffee Yes

"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

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,162
Points 36,965
Moderator
I. Ryan replied on Wed, Jul 22 2009 9:59 AM

GilesStratton:

It's not as if I've not tried. It's just, when I do, people out compete me using the methods outlined above. You see, I argue that fractional reserve banking is legitimate I'm called a fraudster, I argue that it's efficient and I get called a Keynesian. I argue that the market is not infallalible and that institutions may be necessary to correct "market failure" such a global warming or various other public goods issues I get called a "socialist" and a "statist". I argue that religion may be necessary for some of rational ethic and I get called a "nihilist" and a "religious nut" in the same breath.

I don't think I need continue.

You must learn to ignore personal attacks.

If I wrote it more than a few weeks ago, I probably hate it by now.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 183
Points 3,750
tacoface replied on Wed, Jul 22 2009 10:13 AM

market failure???????

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 752
Points 16,735
Sage replied on Wed, Jul 22 2009 10:17 AM

Funny post.

GilesStratton:
To teach people who to beat down socialists in debates.

Don't get too caught up debating people on teh interwebs. There are bigger fish to fry.

AnalyticalAnarchism.net - The Positive Political Economy of Anarchism

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 11,343
Points 194,945
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

Anarchist Cain:
Is this one of those blood-crudling cries for attention? It seems like you have one every week now.

Pretty much.

"When you're young you worry about people stealing your ideas, when you're old you worry that they won't." - David Friedman
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 11,343
Points 194,945
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

GilesStratton:
It's not as if I've not tried. It's just, when I do, people out compete me using the methods outlined above. You see, I argue that fractional reserve banking is legitimate I'm called a fraudster, I argue that it's efficient and I get called a Keynesian. I argue that the market is not infallalible and that institutions may be necessary to correct "market failure" such a global warming or various other public goods issues I get called a "socialist" and a "statist". I argue that religion may be necessary for some of rational ethic and I get called a "nihilist" and a "religious nut" in the same breath.

Persecution complex.  Apparently this paranoia validates acting like an ass.

"When you're young you worry about people stealing your ideas, when you're old you worry that they won't." - David Friedman
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 183
Points 3,750
tacoface replied on Wed, Jul 22 2009 10:26 AM

its actually quite amusing, he leaps from idea to idea every coupla months and acts as if noone has ever thought of it before and boy when he has a new idea doesnt everyone hear about it. he's so eager to show everyone how smart he is, that its basically all he posts about, I'M SO SMART!!!

funny thing is, is that next month he'll be saying something that completely contradicts his current ideas. but theyll be 100% correct of course!

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 183
Points 3,750
tacoface replied on Wed, Jul 22 2009 10:31 AM

he's a big teaser

he took me half the way there now

  • | Post Points: 5
replied on Wed, Jul 22 2009 10:37 AM

Spot on; but you forgot one. You hinted at it, but never outlined it

Use as much latin as possible; even if you have no idea what it means; a priori, ad hominem, semper fi tyranus!, whatever, noone else knows the latin so... you can just act like you do.

(Always faithfusl to tyrants; but you can just tell people its what Booth said when he shot Lincoln, they wont know.)

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 183
Points 3,245
Rooster replied on Wed, Jul 22 2009 10:41 AM

You need something about how mainstream economics is always wrong, even if you know nothing about mainstream economics

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,162
Points 36,965
Moderator
I. Ryan replied on Wed, Jul 22 2009 10:42 AM

tacoface:

its actually quite amusing, he leaps from idea to idea every coupla months and acts as if noone has ever thought of it before and boy when he has a new idea doesnt everyone hear about it. he's so eager to show everyone how smart he is, that its basically all he posts about, I'M SO SMART!!!

funny thing is, is that next month he'll be saying something that completely contradicts his current ideas. but theyll be 100% correct of course!

. . .

he's a big teaser

he took me half the way there now

Did you develop your worldview overnight?

If I wrote it more than a few weeks ago, I probably hate it by now.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 183
Points 3,750
tacoface replied on Wed, Jul 22 2009 10:45 AM

i dont get it

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,162
Points 36,965
Moderator
I. Ryan replied on Wed, Jul 22 2009 10:47 AM

tacoface:
i dont get it

It is ridiculous to criticize someone merely because they changed their arguments. He never pretended that he did not change his arguments.

If I wrote it more than a few weeks ago, I probably hate it by now.

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 183
Points 3,750
tacoface replied on Wed, Jul 22 2009 10:49 AM

where did i criticize him son

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 527
Points 8,490

Giles, Your post was too long so I'm just assuming its incorrect.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,162
Points 36,965
Moderator
I. Ryan replied on Wed, Jul 22 2009 10:52 AM

tacoface:

where did i criticize him son

Here:

tacoface:

its actually quite amusing, he leaps from idea to idea every coupla months and acts as if noone has ever thought of it before and boy when he has a new idea doesnt everyone hear about it. he's so eager to show everyone how smart he is, that its basically all he posts about, I'M SO SMART!!!

funny thing is, is that next month he'll be saying something that completely contradicts his current ideas. but theyll be 100% correct of course!

. . .

he's a big teaser

he took me half the way there now

If the above quoted portion is not a sarcastic attack, then you are a poor communicator.

 

 

If I wrote it more than a few weeks ago, I probably hate it by now.

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 183
Points 3,750
tacoface replied on Wed, Jul 22 2009 10:54 AM

perhaps the english is not your first language then

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,850
Points 85,810

I. Ryan:

tacoface:
i dont get it

It is ridiculous to criticize someone merely because they changed their arguments. He never pretended that he did not change his arguments.

You see criticizing Rothbardians as a valid exercise to developing a world outlook?

'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael

 

  • | Post Points: 35
replied on Wed, Jul 22 2009 10:57 AM

Criticizing and examining ANYONE does create a better world outlook.

If you live in a self-reciprocating cycle of your own beliefs; you are 99% likely to be wrong.... Like W Bush

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 313
Points 6,560
Eric replied on Wed, Jul 22 2009 10:57 AM

Hermes on the day of your death:

Spot on; but you forgot one. You hinted at it, but never outlined it

Use as much latin as possible; even if you have no idea what it means; a priori, ad hominem, semper fi tyranus!, whatever, noone else knows the latin so... you can just act like you do.

"a priori" and "ad hominem" are not difficult terms to understand. They are commonly used.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,162
Points 36,965
Moderator
I. Ryan replied on Wed, Jul 22 2009 10:58 AM

Anarchist Cain:

You see criticizing Rothbardians as a valid exercise to developing a world outlook?

In that portion that you quoted, I did not address the criticisms of any one else other than "tacoface". He seemed to attack Giles because Giles often changes his arguments.

 

If I wrote it more than a few weeks ago, I probably hate it by now.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,162
Points 36,965
Moderator
I. Ryan replied on Wed, Jul 22 2009 10:59 AM

tacoface:

perhaps the english is not your first language then

If the portion that I quoted is not a criticism, then what is it?

 

If I wrote it more than a few weeks ago, I probably hate it by now.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,850
Points 85,810

Hermes on the day of your death:

Criticizing and examining ANYONE does create a better world outlook.

If you live in a self-reciprocating cycle of your own beliefs; you are 99% likely to be wrong.... Like W Bush

How does one know what to criticize if one does not already have an established view. If I have no conceptual knowledge of politics, how then would I criticize anyone?

'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,162
Points 36,965
Moderator
I. Ryan replied on Wed, Jul 22 2009 11:03 AM

Anarchist Cain:

How does one know what to criticize if one does not already have an established view. If I have no conceptual knowledge of politics, how then would I criticize anyone?

That is an interesting strawman. You changed incomplete knowledge into no knowledge.

If I wrote it more than a few weeks ago, I probably hate it by now.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,850
Points 85,810

I. Ryan:
In that portion that you quoted, I did not address the criticisms of any one else other than "tacoface". He seemed to attack Giles because Giles often changes his arguments.

No I attack Giles because his arguments have already been presented [ in previous topics ] and am therefore not committing ad hominen [ disregarding the arguments of Giles and attacking him solely ] fallacies when I state that his bizarre nature is full of purposely neglected contradictions. Giles was a Monarchist months ago when he was a moderator so it is not as if he is 'finally discovering himself.'

'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael

 

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,162
Points 36,965
Moderator
I. Ryan replied on Wed, Jul 22 2009 11:08 AM

Anarchist Cain:

No I attack Giles because his arguments have already been presented [ in previous topics ] and am therefore not committing ad hominen [ disregarding the arguments of Giles and attacking him solely ] fallacies when I state that his bizarre nature is full of purposely neglected contradictions. Giles was a Monarchist months ago when he was a moderator so it is not as if he is 'finally discovering himself.'

I do not understand that passage. I never said that you formed an ad-hominen. And I did not see where you explained that his contradictions are "purposely neglected". Also, I do not understand why being a monarchist means that you cannot change your views. Also, I did not say that he is "finally discovering himself".

If I wrote it more than a few weeks ago, I probably hate it by now.

  • | Post Points: 5
replied on Wed, Jul 22 2009 11:09 AM

You criticize yourself. If you cant criticize the things you agree with your beliefs are based soley on faith, and no real evidence. Its like taking lessons of liberty from the founders even though they were slave owners.  Yes, Jefferson was a hypocrite, but was he wrong in the declaration?

  • | Post Points: 20
replied on Wed, Jul 22 2009 11:10 AM

a ha! so someone here does know what as hominem means. Im surprised, everyone else thinks it simply means a personal attack, not a diversion based on a personal attack.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,850
Points 85,810

I. Ryan:
That is an interesting strawman. You changed incomplete knowledge into no knowledge.

Criticizing a political ideology that I do not know of or have conceptual knowledge of disallows me to make a priori judgements about it. If you disagree then I put forth this challenge to you. I have just invented a new ideology called Obtuse Naturism. Criticize the political platforms of Obtuse Naturism and propound your ideology which according to you is obviously better. Perhaps you are thinking of asserting 'well how do we begin our journey into the political ideology?' to which I reply, we experience states [ ie state of freedom ] which we conceptualize through experience. If I like the state of freedom then I will be willing to join an ideology that propounds a state of freedom and from this conceptualization I can preform a priori predictions as to the results of this enacting of this state.

Therefore to criticize an ideology is to imply that it is bad and therefore you are implying that there is a good. What this good is, is obviously from the conceptualization of an experienced state. Therefore to criticize, one must have an established set of concepts.

'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael

 

  • | Post Points: 35
Page 1 of 8 (291 items) 1 2 3 4 5 Next > ... Last » | RSS