-
A piece of advice from the most wise Marcus Aurelius: " When you wake up in the morning, tell yourself: The people I deal with today will be meddling, ungrateful, arrogant, dishonest, jealous, and surly. They are like this because they can't tell good from evil. But I have seen the beauty of good, and the ugliness of evil, and have recognized
-
"Lam doesn't attack people. He usually asks the state to do it for him." Indeed, I hire CIA assassins to type all of my attacks for me.
-
"It's hard to take an enthusiastic tax welfare advocate (and recepient?) seriously on matters of free markets and libertarian dispute resolution." Well, its a good thing that the only thing you should have to need worry about are the premises of my arguments. As far as the attacks, its not like we don't already know you're an ideological
-
"Yet, I still have people attacking me... can anyone answer my question? Please and thank you" I already did: "According to the ten criteria provide by Boettke here , Hayek is most definitely to be considered in the tradition of Austrian economics." "The briefest answer I can give the OP is to recognise the influence of Walras
-
"I DID NOT SAY HE WASNT AN AUSTRIAN... " A tad emotional there, eh? "Hayek explain in much detail on ABC using graphs and equations... Jörg Guido Hülsmann talks about this a bit in his lecture on the business cycle, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bxq_mhdYeBM ..." Im both Monetary Theory and the Trade Cycle , and Prices
-
First of all, I would advise you to research into events before you make claims like Hayek is not "Austrian" enough, though you use the term "Austrian" in an incoherent matter. In fact, in a letter to Michael Polyani following that incident, Hayek explained that Mises was right in the content of his protest, but utterly rude in how
-
"The lifeblood of the government is tax revenues. Minarchism requires that you say that a certain amount of dual-morality is alright. But how much? Who gets to decide how much immoral behavior is the right amount and which goods are great enough to justify tolerating a little evil? I believe there is a Camel's Nose in the Tent problem. Once
-
"Lam, as Ryan said, nobody here has said that 'science generally proceeds from facts to theories'. I'm saying that the natural sciences sometimes and at some points in the chain of inference do proceed from facts to theory, therefore Andrew's contention that 'to look at facts to derive a theory is preposterous' is false
-
"Lam, with the hypothetico-deductive method, the hypothesis does indeed precede the gathering of potentially falsifying facts. But whether the hypothesis becomes to any degree an even provisionally accepted theory follows and depends on either the corroboration or falsification provided by the facts ." What you have just said further corroborates
-
"Can you substantiate that in the context of the pure natural sciences?" I'll take this for anarchistcain. Its rather simple that a theory simply cannot simply be generalized from set of facts in a sound manner, and this has been shown both by Karl Popper throughout his corpus and by Thomas Kuhn in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions