-
Neodoxy : FOTH, this is a massive failure in logic, and I believe it is also a strawman. I kind of don't know where to begin here, but I guess I just have to say that if no one expected to benefit from voluntary exchanges, then no libertarian would... Advocate voluntary exchange? You might be right that it is a strawman. That's what I'm
-
gotlucky : There is no reason that the class of central planners can outpredict the class of entrepreneurs. At best they could predict at the same rate. And how do you conclude that (the second sentence)? I do not mean to assert that the central planners could outpredict the entrepreneurs, but neither am I convinced that the opposite is true. Do you
-
Clayton : Uncertainty. The future is uncertain - no one knows for sure how things will turn out. For example, a farmer might plant a drought-tolerant crop because there was a dry year last year and then his fields get flooded in unseasonal rains this year. Not only does impersonal Nature change unpredictably, but human preferences also change unpredictably
-
I find the calculation argument to be pretty interesting. It reveals a lot about Austrian economics. It's kind of its raison d'etre . I think it is difficult to understand because the reasoning behind it is very tricky, very mischievous. I should say that while I reject the argument, I am not entirely convinced that a nonmarket economy would
-
Well, I think he might also be talking about his immediate predecessors, like Owen, Saint-Simon, Babeuf and others who sought to establish utopian communities. He was pretty critical of other socialists. In any case, he doesn't say anything to indicate he is talking about the future revolution. I really haven't studied this particular text.
-
Yeah, sorry, that was just my incoherent musings. I probably was thinking along the lines of your third point.
-
Oscar Wilde Franz Kafka Albert Camus
-
Sounds a bit like Zeno's paradoxes. You can break any choice down into indefinitely smaller choices. Playing Starcraft itself can be broken down into smaller choices. How can you ever beat Starcraft if there are singular choices within the game that are more enjoyable than the ones that allow you to win? I think Henri Bergson solves this problem
-
That indeed looks to be the piece Rothbard is referencing. Near the beginning you can see the quote he uses--in a slightly different translation and with a note from Marx. Just as woman passes from marriage to general prostitution, [Prostitution is only a specific expression of the general prostitution of the labourer , and since it is a relationship
-
Exactly, just like you don't have the option to avoid being accosted by men with guns when being robbed.