Laughing Man:No, you asked if I knew about the unanimity principle and I replied. Now you think I just deconstructed public choice because I rejected it. There are many more reasons to think it absurd.
It's a shame you've not read the work of Buchanan and Tullock as well as the rest of the literature on the subject. See, this is the problem when people think Rothbard was intellectually honest, he wasn't. I just read the piece the relevant chapter in The Ethics of Liberty and I can't help but think that his whole "refutation" is nothing but him laboriously erecting a giant strawman and showing the ease with which he could knock it down.
I mean, I could be way off base here, but when Rothbard writes:
Rothbard: In recent years, the Unanimity Principle as groundwork for a free market of voluntary and contractual agreements has been stressed by Professor James Buchanan. The Unanimity Principle has great attractions for “value-free” economists eager to make policy judgments
I can't help but believe that he's confused. Buchanan and Tullock don't, to my knowledge, say that liberals can only ever endorse those policies which satisfy the unanimity principle. Rather, they say that if the unanimity principle is satisfied the policy will be Pareto optimal. However, in practise unanimity isn't possible so there has to be some trade off between efficiency and departures from the unanimity principle.
The thing is, mainstream economists don't think that Pareto optimal policies are always desirable (and they understand how limited they are), rather, they think that with a few relatively arbitrary normative points we can decide on the efficiency of any two policies. Any book on the public sector or welfare economics will explicitely say that this is ignoring equity!
It's a shame so many people think that Rothbard's caricatures are (ever) reliable.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
This thread was interesting to me until Giles "appeal to authority" Stratton started posting. Now I assume he is unstoppable and thus won't waste my time.
Democracy means the opportunity to be everyone's slave.—Karl Kraus.
Buchanan: I am defending the status quo … not because I like it, I do not…. But my defense of the status quo stems from my unwillingness, indeed inability, to discuss changes other than those that are contractual in nature. I can, of course, lay down my own notions…. But, to me, this is simply wasted effort.
I am defending the status quo … not because I like it, I do not…. But my defense of the status quo stems from my unwillingness, indeed inability, to discuss changes other than those that are contractual in nature. I can, of course, lay down my own notions…. But, to me, this is simply wasted effort.
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
E. R. Olovetto: This thread was interesting to me until Giles "appeal to authority" Stratton started posting. Now I assume he is unstoppable and thus won't waste my time.
You've read my mind. Apparently Rothbard is the only man to ever critique public choice. A strange thing I just witnessed, Giles seems to think individuals here worship Rothbardian statutes yet when I say unanimity is a ridculous concept, 'Oh well Rothbard got this wrong or didn't realize this or that'. He talks about Rothbard more then I do.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
E. R. Olovetto, well, that's unfortunate. However, when I see two obvious (and one particularly egrerious) falsehoods being perpetuated by a respected member of the fora I will step in and attempt to correct them. On the other hand, you're more than free to start a new topic, ask me politely to refrain from posting or continue the discussion in private message.
Laughing_Man, no, Rothbard isn't the only individual to ever critique Public Choice (although, you'd find a lot of the other critiques to be particularly distasteful). At the end of the day though it's a fair bet that people here are basing their opinion of something Rothbard has written. So when I find a fallacy (that you repeated, by the way) that looks eerily similar to one I recall from my own readings of Rothbard, I'll make the obvious assumption and go to point out what I believe to be Rothbard's mistake. If you're not going to respond to my last post, I think we're done here and E.R. Olovetto can have his way. I'm not going to respond to your other post because the answers to any points you attempted to make are contained in previous responses by me.
nirgrahamUK, some context might be helpful. I don't really know what point you're trying to make here so I can't say if you're succeeding. Something more than a three line quotation by Buchanan and no text by yourself might be helpful. Keep in mind, Buchanan did describe himself as a "philosophical anarchist". (At least, if my memory serves me correctly)
GilesStratton:nirgrahamUK, some context might be helpful. I don't really know what point you're trying to make here so I can't say if you're succeeding. Something more than a three line quotation by Buchanan and no text by yourself might be helpful. Keep in mind, Buchanan did describe himself as a "philosophical anarchist". (At least, if my memory serves me correctly)
i think the public choice school has done on balance more good than harm, they have watered down austrian type insights and laid them out in ways neoclassicalists with physics envy can gather around without getting cramps.
but at root Buchanan was a statist, a philosophic anarchist, who knows?, but a real life statist, who stood for the status quo. and his justifications for such normative positions owe a part to his theorizing over unanimity principles, and compromising that the unanimity principle be shoved back to a constitutional level. etc.
enough context or need more?
GilesStratton: So when I find a fallacy (that you repeated, by the way) that looks eerily similar to one I recall from my own readings of Rothbard, I'll make the obvious assumption and go to point out what I believe to be Rothbard's mistake.
So by stating that the unanimity is absurd, that is committing the same fallacy that Rothbard did?
GilesStratton: I'm not going to respond to your other post because the answers to any points you attempted to make are contained in previous responses by me.
Really? You said nothing concerning property rights, nothing concerning how my argument legitimizes the state and how it makes theft impossible, nothing concerning the works of the Marxist 'Aristotelian.' All I have seen is placate your fetish of GMU and its faculty, pray tell if I start denouncing the history department at GMU will you come to 'call me out'?
No, you spoke out of ignorance regarding James Buchanan, the unanimity principle and public choice (and the relationships between them) because you believed Rothbard's (awful) "disccusion" of the subject was unbiased and legitimate.
For what it's worth, I'm not accusing you of lying here, I think you were basing your opinion on Rothbard's "treatment". Likewise, when you said that all non-cognitivists are emotivists, I don't think that you were intentionally lying (although, I think Hoppe is when he claims that exact same thing in defence of argumentation ethics). Nonetheless, I find you calling the ideas of a notable economist, and one sympathetic to liberty, "absurd" or "rather silly" without an adequate understanding of them somewhat misguided.
If you seem to think that I've sought to "placate" my "fetish of GMU and its faculty" here, go ahead. I don't believe I have (or that I have a fetish for GMU faculty members, for that matter), I think I've tried to engage in honest discussion and my apologies if it's appeared any other way.
Stephen: Let me try with some neutral examples. Do space and time exist? They are after all not empirical observations but the structure and form of physical reality which must presuppose any empirical observations. Are they also not universally valid? Does not every actor intuitively understand these action produced phenomenon?
Let me try with some neutral examples. Do space and time exist? They are after all not empirical observations but the structure and form of physical reality which must presuppose any empirical observations. Are they also not universally valid? Does not every actor intuitively understand these action produced phenomenon?
If you can move outside of time and space please demonstrate, otherwise the analogy isn't apt, being that you can disobey the natural law.
Stephen:The question was not regarding universal validity. It just seems incoherent to regard rules that at least some ppl are following as non-existent or incoherent.
Pardon me? It was my question, that is what it was in regards to, I did use the term all, as in everyone. The fact that some people can just choose not to follow the natural law shows how worthless of a "law" it is.
Stephen:Well, I posed this as a hypothetical. My main question was this, is there such a thing as an invalid or impossible value scale? Are there not objective constraints on every individuals value scales? And if so, wouldn't this form (structure, ect.) that every value scale must conform to constitute both an ought and an is proposition? I believe the answer to all of these questions is yes.
In the field of ethics, there isn't such a thing as an invalid value scale. Values cannot be true or false due to their subjective nature, thats non-cognitivism in a nutshell
Angurse:The fact that some people can just choose not to follow the natural law shows how worthless of a "law" it is.
Hold on a second. Are you saying I can ignore natural law the same way I ignore the law gravity?
Next thing you know, people will be preparing eggs in the microwave!
liberty student: Hold on a second. Are you saying I can ignore natural law the same way I ignore the law gravity? Next thing you know, people will be preparing eggs in the microwave!
Believe It.
GilesStratton:No, you spoke out of ignorance regarding James Buchanan, the unanimity principle and public choice (and the relationships between them) because you believed Rothbard's (awful) "disccusion" of the subject was unbiased and legitimate.
Please, show me where I brought up Rothbard. Indeed show me where I said anything besides my thinking that the unanimity principle is absurd. You actually haven't even asked me why I think of it in such a way. What was it you said? 'Bashing strawman heads left and right'
GilesStratton:Nonetheless, I find you calling the ideas of a notable economist, and one sympathetic to liberty, "absurd" or "rather silly" without an adequate understanding of them somewhat misguided.
Sympathetic to liberty in what capacity?
GilesStratton:The Marxist Aristotelian is Alasdair MacIntyre, his most famous work is After Virtue which I believe was very important in the development of ethical theory. Now, I could be wrong on the last past of the sentence, but he's certainly not an obscure figure, a quick Google search would have led you to his works.
I shall add his work to my list of reading material.
GilesStratton:I did make my point about property rights, I didn't follow it up because I think you're fundamentally confused and are hostile to me in such a way that we weren't going to make any progress.
You didn't give a sufficient retort. You merely said 'I can use a shotgun' yet that presupposes some form of property rights. That you can deny the ability of usage concerning a resource infers that you own it. Whether it is just ownership or unjust is a separate matter.
GilesStratton: if you think one needs normative rights to defend de facto rights then what of the de facto rights we see defended every day, need they be legitimate?
What of them? De facto rights are just prima facia examples of property rights. Say I walk down the street with an umbrella. On the surface, I am in ownership of that umbrella since I am utilizing it, possessing it, etc. However do I actually own that umbrella simply because I am walking around with it? Perhaps I just stole it from someone. So I have a de facto right to the umbrella now because it is in my possession but I do not have the normative right to it since I unjustly took it from another. Also if the world is just simply de facto rights then say person A wants to take back their umbrella. Well they have no normative right to it, de facto is only concerned with who is in possession or utilizing it, therefore they would have to commit the same act against me in order to retain what is rightfully theirs in the first place. So I guess the answer to your question is de facto property rights derive their legitimacy from normative rights. How we have these normative rights takes us to basic ethical systems of justice / injustice, right / wrong etc. That is what I think is the base contradiction of what people call 'ethical subjectivism' if there are no obligations, to which I am told there are not, between individuals then it devolves into a 'might makes right' theorem perhaps the full realization of a Hobbesian state of nature in which I have the right to kill you and you have the right to defend yourself and whoever wins, just simply wins and it cannot be called unjust or just, good or evil.
GilesStratton:If you seem to think that I've sought to "placate" my "fetish of GMU and its faculty" here, go ahead. I don't believe I have (or that I have a fetish for GMU faculty members, for that matter), I think I've tried to engage in honest discussion and my apologies if it's appeared any other way.
Since you are being charitable then so shall I, I apologize for my cruel statement about GMU. It was silly of me to blow that argument out of proportion.
Angurse:I think it is, I can't prove anything though.
So you think something is wrong yet you can't even prove it is wrong? Then how do you actually know it is wrong? How can you conceptualize a theory without some form of proof. And if you cannot prove that something is wrong, then why are you trying to prove that natural law is wrong or objective ethics is wrong? You seem to be engaging in a performative contradiction. It's like nihilists trying to say 'There is no truth in the world!' thereby establishing an objective truth.
liberty student:Are you saying I can ignore natural law the same way I ignore the law gravity?
You can ignore gravity...for a limited period of time.
Angurse:Believe It.
I am a believer! (but I come to it subjectively!)
Laughing Man: So you think something is wrong yet you can't even prove it is wrong? Then how do you actually know it is wrong? How can you conceptualize a theory without some form of proof.
So you think something is wrong yet you can't even prove it is wrong? Then how do you actually know it is wrong? How can you conceptualize a theory without some form of proof.
I don't know that its wrong, that's the entire point. Knowing is truth-apt, which doesn't apply when it comes to opinions, including ethics. I think murder is immoral the same way I think The Simpsons is funny, or that English is an ugly language, or that Johannes Brahms is a boring composer. But I'd love to see proof of "natural humour" verifying that the Simpsons actually is funny.
Laughing Man:And if you cannot prove that something is wrong, then why are you trying to prove that natural law is wrong or objective ethics is wrong? You seem to be engaging in a performative contradiction. It's like nihilists trying to say 'There is no truth in the world!' thereby establishing an objective truth.
I haven't tried to prove that natural law is wrong, I did say it was silly, and I stand by my opinion of it. All I've done is ask those who say natural law is real to prove that the rules exists.
Angurse:I don't know that its wrong, that's the entire point. Knowing is truth-apt, which doesn't apply when it comes to opinions, including ethics. I think murder is immoral the same way I think The Simpsons is funny, or that English is an ugly language, or that Johannes Brahms is a boring composer. But I'd love to see proof of "natural humour" verifying that the Simpsons actually is funny.
If you don't know it is wrong, then who can you say it is wrong?
Laughing_Man, perhaps I should have made myself clear, I never intended the point we're discussing to be a conclusive refutation, or anything like that. It was meant to be a remark on what I considered to be a curious implication of an argument you put forth. Truth be told, unless you go back and clarify your original point I really don't think this discussion can proceed.
As regards Buchanan and Rothbard. The latter's critique of the former seemed to go along the same lines as yours, so given that many people consider Rothbard to be a legitimate authority (and have read his work) I presume that your critique was based on his "discussion" of Buchanan's work, that's all. Buchanan is a friend of liberty, before Public Choice came along the assumption was not only that governments could acheive their stated ends (which Mises and Hayek challenged) but would. Buchanan (and other Public Choice theorists) challenged that latter and developed models of political actors in which they would maximise their own profit, meaning taking advantage of voter ignorance etc.
Essentially he and Tullock showed government failure was possible.
GilesStratton: Laughing_Man, perhaps I should have made myself clear, I never intended the point we're discussing to be a conclusive refutation, or anything like that. It was meant to be a remark on what I considered to be a curious implication of an argument you put forth. Truth be told, unless you go back and clarify your original point I really don't think this discussion can proceed. As regards Buchanan and Rothbard. The latter's critique of the former seemed to go along the same lines as yours, so given that many people consider Rothbard to be a legitimate authority (and have read his work) I presume that your critique was based on his "discussion" of Buchanan's work, that's all. Buchanan is a friend of liberty, before Public Choice came along the assumption was not only that governments could acheive their stated ends (which Mises and Hayek challenged) but would. Buchanan (and other Public Choice theorists) challenged that latter and developed models of political actors in which they would maximise their own profit, meaning taking advantage of voter ignorance etc. Essentially he and Tullock showed government failure was possible.
Am not right in thinking that Mises made similar insights to Tullock and Buchanan many years earlier in Bureaucracy. I've not read it but I've heard it claimed. I have though read some of Tullock.
The atoms tell the atoms so, for I never was or will but atoms forevermore be.
Yours sincerely,
Physiocrat
Laughing Man:If you don't know it is wrong, then who can you say it is wrong?
Anybody could but that would be making a false statement, as it isn't truth-apt. Or:
Laughing Man:Knowing is truth-apt, which doesn't apply when it comes to opinions, including ethics.
Angurse: Laughing Man:If you don't know it is wrong, then who can you say it is wrong? Anybody could but that would be making a false statement, as it isn't truth-apt. Or: Laughing Man:Knowing is truth-apt, which doesn't apply when it comes to opinions, including ethics.
What do you mean by truth-apt? It sounds like you are trying to dodge the contradiction through unscrupulous obfuscation. If you cannot know, actually know what the difference is between good and bad or know what good or bad is, if you know the latter then you can obviously know the former, then how can you have a valid opinion of whether something is good or bad? You would be using worlds in which you have no concrete definition for, you would be speaking jibberish. Yet you made a coherent sentence in thinking that 'taxes are bad because they are stealing.' So either you had a moment of uncontrollable rational thought concerning a true ethical value statement, or you are being dishonest with yourself.
Laughing Man:What do you mean by truth-apt?
Ethical statements are not propositions and therefore cannot be expressed as true or false, or truth-apt.
Laughing Man:It sounds like you are trying to dodge the contradiction through unscrupulous obfuscation. If you cannot know, actually know what the difference is between good and bad or know what good or bad is, if you know the latter then you can obviously know the former, then how can you have a valid opinion of whether something is good or bad? You would be using worlds in which you have no concrete definition for, you would be speaking jibberish.
And where exactly is the conflict? You cannot have a valid opinion as to whether something is good or bad. Just as you cannot have a valid opinion as to whether something is humourous or humourless. These are all subjective. A valid opinion must be backed by evidence, which is of course, a demonstration of truth.
Laughing Man:Yet you made a coherent sentence in thinking that 'taxes are bad because they are stealing.' So either you had a moment of uncontrollable rational thought concerning a true ethical value statement, or you are being dishonest with yourself.
Quote???
Still it doesn't matter, as such a statement isn't necessarily any endorsement of natural law or objective ethics. Its simply a statement of my (subjective) beliefs. When reading, you falsely assumed that the ethical statement made was premised as true. It wasn't. Its a mere expression of opinion. Interpreted better as:
"(I think that) taxes are 'bad' because they are stealing (which I think is 'bad')."
Its really no different than my saying "The Simpsons is funny" the average person doesn't interpret that as meaning a "true humour statement" they understand that its just an statement of preference.
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."
Angurse:Ethical statements are not propositions and therefore cannot be expressed as true or false, or truth-apt.
So stealing is bad is not a statement that can be either proven true or false?
Angurse:And where exactly is the conflict? You cannot have a valid opinion as to whether something is good or bad. Just as you cannot have a valid opinion as to whether something is humourous or humourless. These are all subjective. A valid opinion must be backed by evidence, which is of course, a demonstration of truth.
Where is the conflict in the premise that you have no idea what good or bad is yet say something is good or bad?
Angurse:Quote???
You replied to my question of 'Taxes are bad' with 'I think so'
Angurse:Still it doesn't matter, as such a statement isn't necessarily any endorsement of natural law or objective ethics. Its simply a statement of my (subjective) beliefs.
But you say that ethical statements cannot be true or false. Are you saying that what is truth to you is not an endorsement of truth or falsity concerning ethical propositions? If so why not?
Angurse:Its really no different than my saying "The Simpsons is funny" the average person doesn't interpret that as meaning a "true humour statement" they understand that its just an statement of preference.
Because morality doesn't deal with humor. It deals with right and wrong.
Juan:I thought that the skeptics/amoralists/postivists/broken records have been ridiculed enough in other threads, but still they keep posting their nonsense ? How boring.
Boring? I'm still waiting for a proof of "natural boredom." Maybe Spooner wrote one...
Laughing Man:So stealing is bad is not a statement that can be either proven true or false?
Precisely.
Laughing Man:Where is the conflict in the premise that you have no idea what good or bad is yet say something is good or bad?
You can have an opinion on what constitutes "good" and "bad" but nothing more. There isn't an objective good or bad just as there isn't an objective funny or un-funny. Its nothing more than an opinion.
Laughing Man:You replied to my question of 'Taxes are bad' with 'I think so'
Yes, I think taxes are wrong. Its only my opinion, it isn't an objective fact.
Laughing Man:But you say that ethical statements cannot be true or false. Are you saying that what is truth to you is not an endorsement of truth or falsity concerning ethical propositions? If so why not?
I'm saying it isn't truth to me nor is it truth to anybody. Such statements simply aen't applicable to truth at all. Instead, what I'm saying is that is my opinion of taxes. Not everything is applicable to truth, including humour, taste, ethics, and morals.
Laughing Man:Because morality doesn't deal with humor. It deals with right and wrong.
They are all opinions. Morality is to humour as "right" is to "funny."
Juan:Didn't you check the thread(s) where your laughable nonsense was, well, already laughed at ?
Nope, could care less. Were you the one laughing in them? Because, if so, that doesn't say all that much.
Angurse:I'm still waiting for a proof of "natural boredom."
You'll be waiting a long time.
Juan:Well, I suppose it's typical of 'philosophers' like to you to reinvent the square wheel...go ahead then.
Philosophy is lame. Big waste of time. Study economics (and engineering).
Angurse: The fact that some people can just choose not to follow the natural law shows how worthless of a "law" it is.
The fact that some people can just choose not to follow the natural law shows how worthless of a "law" it is.
And the fact that people "just choose" to vote in Obama shows how worthwhile and valuable Obama is.
I guess this is a must read.
wilderness: And the fact that people "just choose" to vote in Obama shows how worthwhile and valuable Obama is. I guess this is a must read.
I have no idea what you are talking about. Can you explain how its related to natural law?
Juan, is your note to self for me, or did you mistakenly write what you were thinking?
And I really don't know if my "positivistic ramblings" qualify as philosophy, but they probably do, but everything could be qualified as philosophy by somebody. However, I find it much better to be on the subjectivist side of the fence than the objectivist one, as I don't have that damned burden of proof on my shoulders. And yes, this is very lame, but if you could keep more of your notes to yourself, it would make it much more bearable.
Angurse: Philosophy is lame. Big waste of time. Study economics (and engineering).
Jeffery Tucker writes:
"What's at work here is an unraveling of the entire basis for any form of intellectual discussion. If we can't agree on universal rules of establishing the veracity of truth claims, all discussion is reduced to a series of demands followed by ad hominem attacks on anyone who resists those demands. Mises himself understood that if we are to avoid this fate, there had to be some understanding and agreement on the rules of logic. George Koether reports that Mises told his seminar students that the first book on economics that they should read is a book on logic by Morris Cohen, a book which is in fact one of the last complete texts on logic to be published for universal use in the college classroom." (my bold and underline)
I'll stick to not only Tucker, and Mises who in the thread of the Austrian school of Economics profess the significance of learning about logic. Thomas Aquinas wasn't the only one that said start with math, logic, and then get into other subjects. If you didn't know, Tucker does a lot of great work here and writes some excellent Mises Daily posts.
Also here's a great lecture by Gene Calloun that I watched about a month ago in which I found at Bob Murphy's blog. Excellent discussion on logic.
have fun.
, I find it much better to be on the subjectivist side of the fence than the objectivist one, as I don't have that damned burden of proof on my shoulders.
Yes, I'm the one being called a logical positivist here. And Mises was well aware of the impossibility of objective "natural rights." I'm the one saying that objective ethics aren't necessary. Logic, economics law, is more than enough.
And I mostly agree with Gene and am certainly not a materialist. But that doesn't hamper the case for ethical subjectivism any more than it hampers the case for "humour subjectivism" (or what have you).
Do you, wilderness, believe in objective humour?
Juan:Yes, I know that - it's the easy way out.
You'd make an excellent religious fanatic. "Sure, its easy not to believe in Jesus, since he didn't exist. But you'd be taking the easy way ouy." "Sure, its easy not to believe the Bible is the word of God when its full of contradictions. But thats taking the easy way out." Etc...
In the world of ethics subjectivism is just the intelligent way out.
Juan: You and the rest of the 'subjectivists' usually don't know what you are talking about, but you fancy you keep the intellectual high ground by pretending you can doubt any assertion 'cause "everything is subjective" and you are "open minded" blah blah.
Well, don't lump me in that group. I don't think everything is subjective. I do for ethics though. Its really simple for you to shut me up though, prove that it's objective. (Or admit you believe it on unproven grounds)
Juan: Frankly, it seems to me that if some (philosophical) position is to be called LAME, then that position is subjectivism...
Thats a fair assessment. But, you obviously agree that some things are subjective, such as whats "lame." You'll come around.
Angurse:I'm the one saying that objective ethics aren't necessary. Logic, economics law, is more than enough.
They should be more than enough. Being religious about ethics is not progress.