I know what I would value more.
GilesStratton:There's huge amounts of literature that provide empirical evidence and theoretical research on how voluntary institutions can solve various problems related to the concept of "public goods", if you want I can recommend some, but it's a bit of a strawman to call me a statist because of this
Praxeology and Austrianism is an apriori discipline. I care not for empirical data when it comes to the social sciences.
GilesStratton: Look, if you wish me to use an example that you might be more comfortable with see Hoppe's suggestion that the "free rider" problem with regards to the provision of security may be solved by "natural elites" and restrictive covenants.
I think the 'free rider' problem is an irrelevant one since we are all essentially free riders based on us living off the last generations capital, knowledge and wealth accumulation.
GilesStratton:On the other hand, yes, you're correct that I value the state in the sense that it provides various goods at the current time (although, I don't think I mentioned security). But let me add this, by Austrian methodological precents, namely revealed preference, anybody here who uses state owned roads or other state services values the state too. I'm just more honest about it.
Because it is impractical not to use them. I value private roads higher then I would public roads which is the reason why I advocate for such a system. However, to terrorize public roads and commit sabotage against them is immature and useless, plus I could be very well transgressing the NAP if I should do such a thing.
However, since we estabished that you value the state in the sense that it provides goods, then do you theorize that the state should always be around to ensure this service or do you think that people should come together and establish government in order to get these services?
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
GilesStratton:Why, because I'm apolitical? That makes a lot of sense. I don't really understand what your issue is, I don't concern myself with questions regarding the morality of the state because I believe my time is spent better elsewhere.
You've spent plenty of time on this site opining about morality of drugs and sexual orientation, now suddenly your tongue is caught short?
Answer the question. Do you or do you not support the state?
Lay any false claims to rest by elucidating your opinion where all may see it.
adam knott: Jack: Is neutrality in this matter a sensible or sensical option in your opinion? If not, why not ?
Jack:
Is neutrality in this matter a sensible or sensical option in your opinion?
If not, why not ?
I'm not sure how to answer that, honestly. I don't see the sense in willingly supporting the state. That being said, I can't make others care about it. If Giles honestly doesn't care, that's his business.
faber est suae quisque fortunae
liberty student:Answer the question. Do you or do you not support the state?
I've answered this question, you're just not content with my answer. The difference between minarchy and anarchy is indifferent to me, I can't say I'm particularly fond of big government, but beyond that I'm not sure I can say much. Considerably less so when it comes to normative judgements as opposed to my own subjective value judgements. My rejection of big government is mainly the result of my Christianity. But as I said, I don't concern myself with such questions. For me the economic implications government are far more relevant than the normative aspects.
As for drugs etc. I don't think I've made any moral claims regarding the use of drugs or whatever other cultural issue I've spoken of. If you believe I have, please, provide evidence.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
Anarchist Cain:Praxeology and Austrianism is an apriori discipline. I care not for empirical data when it comes to the social sciences.
Yes, Mises did believe a priorism was the correct way to go about the social sciences. But nowhere does Austrianism deny the relevance of empirical evidence when it comes to applied economics. Unless you wish to go so far as to say that Rothbard could have written America's Great Depression without consulting the statistics for money supply, interest rates etc your position is without substance. Nowhere have I contradicted Mises whose claim was that evidence cannot "falsify" theory, only illustrate it. Your objection is wholly without substance.
Unless, of course, you want me to start quoting Theory and History.
Anarchist Cain:I think the 'free rider' problem is an irrelevant one since we are all essentially free riders based on us living off the last generations capital, knowledge and wealth accumulation.
Once again, I don't see what your objection is. I merely offered an example that I thought would not be objectionable to a self described Rothbardians. Look, you follow the words of Roderick Long quite closely. In which case I'm going to assume you believe in public property under "anarcho capitalism". If I'm correct, you're going to have to come up with some way of governing these commons. This means you'll have to deal with various problems commonly associated with public goods.
Simply blurting out that we're all free riders doesn't solve this problem, nor does it make it go away.
Anarchist Cain:Because it is impractical not to use them. I value private roads higher then I would public roads which is the reason why I advocate for such a system. However, to terrorize public roads and commit sabotage against them is immature and useless, plus I could be very well transgressing the NAP if I should do such a thing.
You've entirely missed my point. Yes, maybe you believe that the opportunity cost implied in state provision of goods is higher than the benefit (and as a rule, so do I). But, you've not answered my original objection, which was that if you believe in demonstrated preference, a methodological precept of Austrianism, then the very fact that you use the roads implies you value them.
Anarchist Cain:However, since we estabished that you value the state in the sense that it provides goods, then do you theorize that the state should always be around to ensure this service or do you think that people should come together and establish government in order to get these services?
No, I don't think the state is necessary to provide any services. I think the voluntary interactions of individuals does a good, but not perfect, job. On the other hand, I'm not sure what you mean by "government", which can mean a coercive state or simply some mechanism with which the commons may be governed.
JackCuyler: adam knott: Jack: Is neutrality in this matter a sensible or sensical option in your opinion? If not, why not ? I'm not sure how to answer that, honestly. I don't see the sense in willingly supporting the state. That being said, I can't make others care about it. If Giles honestly doesn't care, that's his business.
Neutrality would be giles not arguing against something which he obviously is.
GilesStratton:I've answered this question, you're just not content with my answer.
GilesStratton:But as I said, I don't concern myself with such questions.
Is that a yes or a no? Do you or do you not support the state?
It's neither. What's your favourite town of under 1000 people in the Algarve?
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
Every move you make at this point, leads to a checkmate.
If you don't reply, you lose the capacity to criticize libertarians for their political views (including me, yipee!), and suffer a massive loss of credibility.
If you reply that you are anti-state, you lose the capacity to be self-righteous about your parasitism and claims to positive outcomes arising from state shenanigans.
If you reply that you are pro-state, you lose credibility as a free market and Austrian economist.
I have to admit, I am lousy at chess, but saw this outcome a half dozen moves ago.
Your turn.
Juan:At any rate Giles has made clear he's not interested in freedom
yes he did... to be more exact he said he doesn't give a damn about liberty...
outstanding point!
wilderness:yes he did... to be more exact he said he doesn't give a damn about liberty...
But that wasn't honest. It was even less honest than his current attempt at dodging a direct question.
Giles loves liberty. Giles is about his liberty, and if it comes at your expense, all the better.
true... true...
Juan:simply won't admit defeat.
I don't want Giles to admit he is wrong or defeated. But he as positioned himself in a no-win scenario by holding the positions he claims to hold. Even if he is right, and believes 100% in his positions, there are consequences. Intellectual opportunity costs.
He can't have it both ways anymore. He'll have to decide. If he chooses indecision or absention, he removes himself from a great many debates.
LS:Giles is about his liberty, and if it comes at your expense, all the better.
OK, let me respond to the three alternatives in turn.
If I don't reply, why can't I criticize libertarians for their views? If I see a logical fallacy, I won't hesitate to point it out. The fact that I have no clearly defined, systematic views on the issue myself has no bearing on whether or not my insights on the issue are correct. This said, I generally don't criticize libertarians political views, rather I dislike the ways in which they go about "spreading" their ideas. I also criticize the impact these views have on economic science, which is value free. As for my credibility, that's a strong claim to make. I don't think it quite follows that because I have no clearly defined political views at this stage of my life that I'm not a credible source on other issues, as far as I'm aware neither Menger nor Bohm-Bawerk wrote about political issues, Strigl and Wieser were socialists. Are these authors not to be taken seriously bewcause of it?
As for whether or not I'm anti-state. I think you need to be more clear about what you mean. I'm anti state in the sense that I subjectively dislike some aspects of the state. But I don't have any defined normative views on the state and it's alleged illegitmacy. As for your claim of "positive outcomes", that's really ambiguous. I don't think that there are, in the long run, any positive economic results from state intervention in the economy. What I do know is that I subjectively value state provision of science. As for the normative aspect, you know what I think already.
I don't see why being pro-state would mean a loss of credibility as an Austrian economist (which I wouldn't consider myself anyway, I'm still an undergraduate student after all). Mises stressed, following Weber, that economic science is value free. There would be nothing wrong with an Austrian economist/ Virginia School economist realizing all the flaws of socialism and yet still advocating communism on normative grounds.
That said, I still choose the first of three. Your turn, I suppose.
Juan:Well, it is interesting that in order to engage in so called 'value free' science one needs to unconditionally stick to values...like honesty.
I don't consider that this has any bearing on the issue, but are you denying that economic science is indeed value free, thus contradicting Weber, Mises, Rothbard and every Austrian since? In any case, you're argument rests on an equivocation, in one wishes to engage in science (read, one values science) then one should value honesty as a means. This makes no claims about what ends one wishes to acheive.
I believe Blaug and Weber have already clarified this.
liberty student:Giles is about his liberty, and if it comes at your expense, all the better.
Besides being, to some extent, a strawman, this rests on an equivocation that would destroy your own position. Yes, I value liberty in the sense that I enjoy being able to pursue my own value. On the other hand, this by no means implies that I should value liberty in the political sense.
liberty student: Every move you make at this point, leads to a checkmate. If you don't reply, you lose the capacity to criticize libertarians for their political views (including me, yipee!), and suffer a massive loss of credibility. If you reply that you are anti-state, you lose the capacity to be self-righteous about your parasitism and claims to positive outcomes arising from state shenanigans. If you reply that you are pro-state, you lose credibility as a free market and Austrian economist. I have to admit, I am lousy at chess, but saw this outcome a half dozen moves ago. Your turn.
So again, given that Mises was not an anarchist, can we say that Mises loses credibility as a free market and Austrian economist?
Giles:I don't consider that this has any bearing on the issue
but are you denying that economic science is indeed value free,
Rooster:So again, given that Mises was not an anarchist, can we say that Mises loses credibility as a free market and Austrian economist ?
Juan:Political economy was a tool created by libertarians to advance freedom - nothing value-free about that. What is 'value free' about economics is that economics, like any valid reasoning, must stick to logic. And logic is 'value free'...sort of.
I don't really think you know what you're talking about. It's a very dubious claim that political economy was created by libertarians to advance freedom and it's one I doubt you can substantiate. I'm almost less than convinced that political economy represents the entirety of economics, since as far as I'm aware political economy is a branch of economic science.
I suggest you go read Mises, Weber and the rest of the Austrians who have written on this issue, since you're essentially denying that there is a realm of economics at all.
Rooster:So again, given that Mises was not an anarchist, can we say that Mises loses credibility as a free market and Austrian economist?
I already answered this sort of question, but Lam moved it to a new thread for some reason. My answer to your previous similar question will serve as an adequate answer for this one.
as far as I'm aware political economy is a branch of economic science.
liberty student: Rooster:So again, given that Mises was not an anarchist, can we say that Mises loses credibility as a free market and Austrian economist? I already answered this sort of question, but Lam moved it to a new thread for some reason. My answer to your previous similar question will serve as an adequate answer for this one.
So let's be clear then, a proposal for the new home page based on some of the preferred language of this forum:
Tu Ne Cede Malis
-- Ludwig von Mises: statist, socialist, crank, parasite, lost credibility as a free market and Austrian economist
Correct?
GilesStratton:Besides being, to some extent, a strawman,
Oh, did I attribute a position you do not hold? What position do you hold? Do you support the state or not?
Rooster:So let's be clear then, a proposal for the new home page based on some of the preferred language of this forum
First, opinions on this forum are not universal. Second, no one is proposing the Institute adopt any ideas generated in this community.
Third, you are arguing past my original response to you? Did you read it, or are you strawmanning me?
Juan:as far as I'm aware political economy is a branch of economic science. So, you don't even know what political economy means. Oh by the way, Weber was not an austrian economist he was a german social democrat.
Weber was a great sociologist, that is all that matters.
Abstract liberty, like other mere abstractions, is not to be found.
- Edmund Burke
liberty student: Rooster:So let's be clear then, a proposal for the new home page based on some of the preferred language of this forum First, opinions on this forum are not universal. Second, no one is proposing the Institute adopt any ideas generated in this community.
I didn't say they were, I know no one was proposing that. I thought you might have picked up on the humorous aspect.
Well, if you use those terms to refer to non-anarchists, then it's not a strawman, is it? I believe you did disavow the use of "crank," but wouldn't it be crank economics to come to socialist conclusions? Something must have gone very wrong.
Juan: Rooster:So again, given that Mises was not an anarchist, can we say that Mises loses credibility as a free market and Austrian economist ? Yes. It seems he didn't fully grasp economics and failed to apply it to the area of defense and protection of individual rights.
Given that he must have been familiar with anarchist arguments, it seems either a) there is some deductive logic that he failed to grasp, or b) an anarchist position is not necessitated by logic. Which is it?
Juan:So, you don't even know what political economy means.
I believe I do, it's the branch of economic science that studies the impact that government has upon the economy. Of course, if you disagree that polical economy is a branch of economic science and wish to provide another definition, go ahead. But be warned, if you do so your original "criticism" that economics is not value true loses its weight.
As for Weber, I could care less about his political views. Mises drew heavily on him, especially so in regards to value freedom in the social sciences. Perhaps you should know that Weber was often the subject of discussion in the original Mises Circle in Vienna.
liberty student:Oh, did I attribute a position you do not hold? What position do you hold? Do you support the state or not?
I've answered this, what's more, you've acknowledged my answer. If you wish to go ahead and respond to my post, I'd be much obliged. I put time and thought into posting it. On the other hand, if you don't want to respond to my posts and wish to act in a manner that you berate Brainpolice for, that's also welcome. But I believe you should stop lecturing me on credibility if you wish to do so.
You've gone out of your way to ignore my posts recently, as well as inconveninet posts by others. So, please take your move, or knock that king of yours over and capitulate.
Anarchist Cain:I care not for empirical data when it comes to the social sciences.
Facts cannot be allowed to stand in our way, no, no.
I believe I do, it's the branch of economic science that studies the impact that government has upon the economy.
As for Weber, I could care less about his political views.
scineram:Facts cannot be allowed to stand in our way, no, no.
What, you didn't hear? The Great Lord Rothbard wrote America's Great Depression without any reference to empirical evidence, it was all deduced a priori from the action axiom! Lesser Austrians such as Boettke, Horwitz, White, Selgin, Garrison, Thornton, Klein, Leeson, Coyne and others may have to resort to evidence. But that's only because they're insufficiently Austrians and quite simply not very good economists.
Juan:Political economy always dealt with all economic phenomena including government intervention. But never mind - I won't bother engaging in a pseudo intellectual discussion with an academic wannabe
That's not a definition, which is what I was asking for. But, go ahead, dismiss me as a pseudo intellectual. It does things so much easier when you can resort to throwing ad homines around. Perhaps I shouldn't have written the OP of this topic, people are outdebating me with such ease nowadays!
Juan:Just like I couldn't care less for his flawed philosophy (if it even deserves such a name).
OK, well, Mises adopted a great deal of it. So now we can be done with Mises. The Austrians school officially began with Murray Rothbard, this clears up quite a few tricky issues.
Tu Ne Cede Malis -
Ludwig von Mises, crank, statist, socialist, propagandist and flawed philosopher.
Juan:Weber was a great sociologist, that is all that matters. What is sociology ?
I know that you're not an expert at english, but if you're going to discuss about Weber in english, do know, in english, what you're talking about, in english. Sociology tends to be about the analysis of social institutions outside of the economy - dealing with issues like classes, racial relations, social stratification, culture, and social interaction.
Juan:And by the way, why not discuss Weber's cranky politics and statism ?
Because it has no relevance to Weber's support of value-free science, which is the context he was brought into the conversation.