Well, if you admit that Marxian economics can't be reconciled with the austrian tradition then the only other major aspects of Marx's social philosophy is that which was infuensed by Hegel and Marx own vision of communism and historical materialism (both heavily influenced by Marx's hegelian and messianic predecessors). I shall not go into a long discussion about Hegels philosophy, sufficed to say, if you honestly think that Hegels legacy can be of value to the austrian tradition then I think youre in the wrong forum Donny.
Let me give one example of the Hegelian legacy, which you happened to mention yourself, namenly the concept of "alienation"
Marx notion of alienation can not in any way be reconciled with the austrian tradition. To Marx, "alienation" had nothing to do with the psychological feeling of anxiety or estrangement, if that's what you think (it's hard for me to know since your post doesn't actually give any arguments what so ever to WHY Marx social philosophy would be valuable to the austrian). "Alienation" was rather something more cosmic. Alienation came to be, according to Marx and Hegel, as a result of the institution of money, specialization and the division of labor and these "evils" had to be abolished so to unite the collective organism that is man. In Marx philosophy, mans "alienation" would end only when these "evils" had been eradicated by the proletarian revolution followed by the establishing of a communist society.
And please, don't assume that I haven't read anything by Marx. Long before I came in contact with the writings of Mises and Rothbard I read Rawls, Marx, Prodhound and his likes, I was never particularly impressed with anyone of them, if there is anything of value in their writings it is usually much better stated and argued for by the french liberal school of economics such as Bastiat, or by the Austrian school such as Hoppe or Rothbard. I'm not interested in utopian dreams, meaningless observations/categories, I only care about the moral, methodological and economic theory of these traditions and as I stated before, in comparing marxism with austrianism, they are very close to being each others opposites.
I don't think your interpretation of Marxian alienation is correct. My reading is captured here, here and here.
As for Hegelian philosophy somehow being contrary to Austrian thinking, you'll have to expand on that. I acknowledge that Hegel's understanding of history was quite effectively disputed by Mises in Theory and History, but it's not exactly like Hegel's only contribution to philosophy was his theory of history. Hegel's views on the good life, for example, are completely compatible with Austrian thinking, and are totally consistent with Hayek's and Nozick's perspectives on the importance of individual planning and the quest to bring one's material existence into line with one's own values and worldview. As Marx characterized the idea in "Estranged Labour," "...man produces himself not only intellectually, in his consciousness, but actively and actually, and he can therefore contemplate himself in a world he himself has created." That's a point that can resonate with Austrians as well as Marxians and Hegelians.
Regarding my belonging on this forum, I'm not sure that you're in much of a position to make that kind of statement, given that I've been skulking around this community since '06 (when we were still over at the Austrian Forum), and it looks like you've been here for less than a year. Be nice (please).
Donny with an A:Regarding my belonging on this forum, I'm not sure that you're in much of a position to make that kind of statement, given that I've been skulking around this community since '06 (when we were still over at the Austrian Forum), and it looks like you've been here for less than a year. Be nice (please).
I thought it was a great position. He questioned your membership on ideology, not veterancy. George Bush is old enough to be your father, but I don't think he has anything of value to teach you.
I think you are missing the profound influence that Aristotle had on Hegel and Marx. Marx's critiques, right or wrong, and especially his idea of alienation is related to the way in which a social system conforms to and fulfills the nature of man.
You are missing the forest for the trees in this sense. The Austrian school shares a great deal of its rationalism, through Aristotle with Marx and Hegel.
I have found that many Marxists can appreciate the ideas of the Austrian School, than those who adhere to a dogmatic form of Humean empiricism.
Can Marxism be reconciled with the Austrian school qua Austrian school? No, not really, but can one be influenced by Marx and influenced by the Austrian School, yes. This is seen through people like Theodore Burczak who synthesize the economic critiques of Hayek with a Marxian account of appropriative justice.
I find it amusing that people on this forum are opposed to people who are influenced by Austrians, but do not necessarily drink the koolaid, and accept all facets of their philosophy.
For example, I integrate elements of the communitarian critique of liberalism, in my defense of a form of perfectionist liberalism. I am still a liberal, but this does not mean I must necessarily accept Locke, Rothbard and Hoppe without question.
http://aestheticbend.blogspot.com/
liberty student:I thought it was a great position
How dare anybody draw on people other than Rothbard and Mises on these forums!
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
Agree with you on most points, but regarding perfectionism, have you looked into the works of Douglas Rasmussen and Douglas den Uyl yet? They both defend classical liberalism from the vantage point of perfectionist ethics.
-Jon
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Liberty student, do you think that over the course of the past two years or so, I've been out of place here? My point had nothing to do with "seniority" or anything like it; I was pointing out that I've been around this community for a while with no problem, and I don't think he's in any position to try to call me out as if I were some sort of outsider who didn't understand how things work around here. I didn't take much offense to the statement, I'm just saying that he should tone down the rhetoric. No hard feelings, I hope.
I don't care who people draw on as long as it is rational and consistent. I do sometimes wonder about gleaning 10% of Marx, when the other 90% is so badly misguided. But hey, anything is possible right?
I recently began a project of sorts, critiquing Molyneux's "Introduction to Philosophy." I should be able to go about one video a day, I put my first one up tonight.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mASolOEJD3U
Any commentary or corrections would be appreciated.
Donny with an A: Liberty student, do you think that over the course of the past two years or so, I've been out of place here?
Liberty student, do you think that over the course of the past two years or so, I've been out of place here?
I don't care?
Donny with an A: My point had nothing to do with "seniority" or anything like it; I was pointing out that I've been around this community for a while with no problem, and I don't think he's in any position to try to call me out as if I were some sort of outsider who didn't understand how things work around here.
My point had nothing to do with "seniority" or anything like it; I was pointing out that I've been around this community for a while with no problem, and I don't think he's in any position to try to call me out as if I were some sort of outsider who didn't understand how things work around here.
You made an argument about how long you have been around, not an argument against his issue with your position. Someone could show up here tomorrow and be more insightful and knowledgeable than all of us. Defend the merit of your position, not the lack of criticism or oversight.
Donny with an A: I didn't take much offense to the statement, I'm just saying that he should tone down the rhetoric. No hard feelings, I hope.
I didn't take much offense to the statement, I'm just saying that he should tone down the rhetoric. No hard feelings, I hope.
I'm more concerned with what you think than how you express it. Lately, I've been concerned by some of your positions. Regardless, you won't get a pass (and shouldn't) from anyone based upon how long you have been promoting ideas if the ideas themselves are up for challenge.
I have Liberty and Nature, and I read the first third of the book a couple years ago, when I was much more philosophically illiterate,so I did not gather much from it, but I do plan to read through it over this summer, but am far too busy with school at the moment.
My broad acceptance of perfectionist ethics comes from the fact I do not think that the right can be distinguished from the good, without presupposing a conception of the good. It makes no sense to speak of "rights" without appealing to a concept of the good life. Without this conception of the good life, appeals to rights can be reduced to appeals to fairness or equality in some way, which are substantive values that need justification.
Donny with an A: I don't think your interpretation of Marxian alienation is correct. My reading is captured here, here and here. As for Hegelian philosophy somehow being contrary to Austrian thinking, you'll have to expand on that. I acknowledge that Hegel's understanding of history was quite effectively disputed by Mises in Theory and History, but it's not exactly like Hegel's only contribution to philosophy was his theory of history. Hegel's views on the good life, for example, are completely compatible with Austrian thinking, and are totally consistent with Hayek's and Nozick's perspectives on the importance of individual planning and the quest to bring one's material existence into line with one's own values and worldview. As Marx characterized the idea in "Estranged Labour," "...man produces himself not only intellectually, in his consciousness, but actively and actually, and he can therefore contemplate himself in a world he himself has created." That's a point that can resonate with Austrians as well as Marxians and Hegelians. Regarding my belonging on this forum, I'm not sure that you're in much of a position to make that kind of statement, given that I've been skulking around this community since '06 (when we were still over at the Austrian Forum), and it looks like you've been here for less than a year. Be nice (please).
*SIGH*, I'm sure you can digg up plenty of more details in Hegels and Marx writings that could, possibly, be logically consistent with austrian theory, but I'm interested in the BIG picture, not some anecdote about the "good life". The bottom line is, all the main traits in Marx philosophy; historical materialism, the dialectical process, the labour theory of value, the class struggle, his theory of capitalism and it's inevitable demise and communism are directly opposed, in one way or another, to the austrian philosophy. You seem to lack a basic understanding of what is necessary for two philosophys to be in agreement with one another.
In my initial post I wrote that it's really up to you to prove why Marx is of value to the austrian school, NOT the otherway around, I don't feel like I have to prove anything, if this bothers you then don't reply. So if you want this discussion to go any further you can start with the basics: how is it that praxeology can be in harmony with Marx's historical materialism and the dialectical process? You will find even the most basic task like this to be impossible, there is probably no place in Marx system where he is fuzzier or shakier then at it's base: the concept of historical materialism, the key to the inevitable dialectic of history. Then compare that with Mises writings on praxeology and methodology, are you honestly gonna tell me these philosphys don't contradict?
I just don't feel like wasting anymore time on this discussion unless you start showing me how the Marxian philosphy is of value to the austrians and by philosophy I don't mean just some little quote you have dugg up from an old forum post, prove to me logically why it is the case, argue!
liberty student: Defend the merit of your position, not the lack of criticism or oversight.
...but I did...
liberty student:Lately, I've been concerned by some of your positions. Regardless, you won't get a pass (and shouldn't) from anyone based upon how long you have been promoting ideas if the ideas themselves are up for challenge.
So what you're suggesting is that this forum should be hesitant to tolerate the presence of people who don't take positions that you're comfortable with? Actually, I don't care. This conversation should be over.
Aesthetic bend, could you clarify what sort of perfectionism you have in mind? I was under the impression that rights don't really play a substantive role in perfectionist theories, but that could be totally wrong...
Morty, from the beginning of your recording, it just sounds like Stefan was advancing logical positivism...
Donny with an A: liberty student:Lately, I've been concerned by some of your positions. Regardless, you won't get a pass (and shouldn't) from anyone based upon how long you have been promoting ideas if the ideas themselves are up for challenge. So what you're suggesting is that this forum should be hesitant to tolerate the presence of people who don't take positions that you're comfortable with?
So what you're suggesting is that this forum should be hesitant to tolerate the presence of people who don't take positions that you're comfortable with?
And where did I suggest that?
Hint: I didn't.
The idea of rights as a rhetorical device that justifies the ability of the individual to act a certain way unencumbered by coercion is not done away with by perfectionism, but the rights certainly cannot be viewed in a Kantian sense.
Rights are not foundational, but rather they are expressions of what is necessary for the good life. So, a right to liberty in this framework is making a very different claim from a right in an anti-perfectionist theory. Though, what is defended by the claim of a right to liberty by a perfectionist and an anti-perfectionist are the same.
Well the original point was that in light of my position, I might not belong on this forum. I objected, saying that I've been around here a long time. You objected to my objection, saying that my long standing presence here proves nothing. From the fact that you took the original poster's side, and dismissed my counterargument, I inferred that you might be suggesting that the original poster was justified in saying that I might not belong here. You seemed to reinforce this interpretation by pointing out that you were "uncomfortable" with some of the things I've said lately. But I phrased my reply as a question, as I was fully aware that I may have misinterpreted your point. In any case, this is a really unpleasant conversation, and I'd prefer if it were over.
Aestheticbend, in what way does the perfectionism you describe differ from utilitarianism? Or is it a Socratic sort of utilitarianism, in that it focuses on what would actually be good for people, as opposed to what they in fact desire or what might make them feel happiest?
Donny with an A: In any case, this is a really unpleasant conversation, and I'd prefer if it were over.
In any case, this is a really unpleasant conversation, and I'd prefer if it were over.
Of course you would.
Donny with an A: Well the original point was that in light of my position, I might not belong on this forum. I objected, saying that I've been around here a long time. You objected to my objection, saying that my long standing presence here proves nothing. From the fact that you took the original poster's side, and dismissed my counterargument, I inferred that you might be suggesting that the original poster was justified in saying that I might not belong here. You seemed to reinforce this interpretation by pointing out that you were "uncomfortable" with some of the things I've said lately. But I phrased my reply as a question, as I was fully aware that I may have misinterpreted your point. In any case, this is a really unpleasant conversation, and I'd prefer if it were over.
You wanna know what I think is unpleasant? The fact that two of the most misguided, evil thinkers in human history, Hegel and Marx, are according to you a great source of inspiration when you call yourself a libertarian.
Donny with an A: Aestheticbend, in what way does the perfectionism you describe differ from utilitarianism? Or is it a Socratic sort of utilitarianism, in that it focuses on what would actually be good for people, as opposed to what they in fact desire or what might make them feel happiest?
It would probably be best described as a form of socratic utilitarianism. I distinguish between volitional well being and critical well being. But, I do think that certain values are incommensurable so when i say the good, I am not referring to it in the same sense as a singular concept like utility. The good consists in achieving a whole host of incommensurable secondary goods.
Donny with an A:Aesthetic bend, could you clarify what sort of perfectionism you have in mind? I was under the impression that rights don't really play a substantive role in perfectionist theories, but that could be totally wrong...
See the work of Ayn Rand, Douglas Rasmussen and Douglas Den Uyl, Roderick Long, Tibor Machan, myself and others.
Yours in liberty,Geoffrey Allan Plauché, Ph.D.Adjunct Instructor, Buena Vista UniversityWebmaster, LibertarianStandard.comFounder / Executive Editor, Prometheusreview.com
aestheticbend: Donny with an A: Aestheticbend, in what way does the perfectionism you describe differ from utilitarianism? Or is it a Socratic sort of utilitarianism, in that it focuses on what would actually be good for people, as opposed to what they in fact desire or what might make them feel happiest? It would probably be best described as a form of socratic utilitarianism. I distinguish between volitional well being and critical well being. But, I do think that certain values are incommensurable so when i say the good, I am not referring to it in the same sense as a singular concept like utility. The good consists in achieving a whole host of incommensurable secondary goods.
Sorry to interrupt and be a pain in the ass, but for somebody not understanding any of this, where as good places to begin?
@ LS and Magnus, why the hostility?
Actually, I think you should read Norms of Liberty first before re-reading it. I found it to be the more rigorous of their two works.
Liberty student, I'm glad to know that my behavior fits your model.
Magnus, why do you think that Marx and Hegel were evil? Hegel was a religious idealist, and his theories reflect that starting point. If you seperate out the bad stuff from his thinking, there's some really good stuff in there. Marx, on the other hand, rejected religion, but nevertheless accepted the dialectical view of history. Further, like many other economists of his time, he accepted the labor theory of value. If you look at his theories in light of his acceptance of those two fundamental premises, it's not difficult to see why he reached the conclusions he did. They make perfect sense if you take as given the theories of dialectical materialism and the labor theory of value. Granted, a lot of Marx's thinking crumbles once those two supports are removed. But again, some of what remains is really valuable.
I list Marx and Hegel as inspirational here, but that doesn't mean that I'm a Hegelian or a Marxist. Gerald Cohen is certainly another significant inspiration for me, as are Richard Arneson, John Rawls, Peter Singer, John Harsanyi, and Paul Taylor. I don't agree with them on a lot of things, but I've certainly learned a whole lot from what they had to say, and in a lot of ways they've influenced my thinking just as much as any libertarian author (perhaps not true with regard to Mises, Hayek, and Nozick). Obviously there are a lot of libertarian or classical liberal thinkers who've had a significant impact on me as well, including the aforementioned three, along with Locke, Hazlitt, Bauer, Long, Feinberg, Schmidtz, Gaus, Lomasky, Simmons, Steiner, Otsuka, Narveson, Benson, Holcombe, Dolan, Block, (David) Friedman, etc., etc. But just because I'm a libertarian doesn't mean I have to ignore the contributions of the great figures in philosophical history. It's that kind of doctrinaire attitude that can only impoverish a school of philosophical thought.
GilesStratton:Sorry to interrupt and be a pain in the ass, but for somebody not understanding any of this, where as good places to begin?
If it is the perfectionist ethics and rights you're interested in, I recommend looking into the works of Douglas Rasmussen and Douglas Den Uyl (frequent co-authors), each has an article in the JLS, and Roderick Long. Roderick has a seminar on this site on the praxeological foundations of libertarian ethics. Roderick also has a great essay in which he argues that indirect consequentialism (e.g., rule-utilitarianism) is praxeologically unstable.
GilesStratton: @ LS and Magnus, why the hostility?
Same reason you get hostile with Juan and BP. I'm surprised you can't see it.
Aestheticbend, I think I understand what you're getting at.
Geoffrey, don't you mean "See the work of Aristotle?" Would you really consider Aristotelian views to be perfectionist in nature? For some reason, I thought that perfectionism was an aggregative teleological view, rather than an individualistic one like I took Aristotle's to be...but you're the Aristotelian here; what do you think?
Giles, apparently I don't know what perfectionism is, so unfortunately I'm not likely to be able to provide any decisive help. My invocation of Socrates in clarifying a variant of utilitarianism draws on Socrates' idea (I know it from the Gorgias, but I imagine it appears elsewhere as well) that it's not necessarily good for people to get what they want, because what they want might not be what they should want. His classic example (if I remember correctly) invokes a cook and a doctor trying to compete for the favor of a panel of sick children. Socrates' point is that the cook will always win, even though the doctor is the one who can actually heal them, because the cook can offer the children things that are more intuitively appealing, whereas the doctor's remedies may involve some short-term discomfort in a more roundabout way of producing benefit. This idea is often used to dispute preference-based varieties of utilitarianism which say that people are better off insofar as they get what they want, since what they want may in fact be harmful to them. I therefore attempted to equate Aestheticbend's views with a sort of utilitarianism which is structured around this objection, advocating the maximization of what people should want (that is, what would be best for them), rather than what they do want.
Donny with an A: Liberty student, I'm glad to know that my behavior fits your model.
It's not my model. Let's just say you are internally consistent.
Jon Irenicus: I have Liberty and Nature, and I read the first third of the book a couple years ago, when I was much more philosophically illiterate,so I did not gather much from it, but I do plan to read through it over this summer, but am far too busy with school at the moment. Actually, I think you should read Norms of Liberty first before re-reading it. I found it to be the more rigorous of their two works. -Jon
It's more rigorous, but it also brings out more explicitly the flaw in their theory of rights that I critique in my dissertation. Liberty and Nature also has a broader scope, dealing with the is-ought gap, friendship, commerce and other topics; it's a good starting point.
Indeed, but I had in mind the grounding of their overarching system, which they do best in NoL, both in terms of ethical as well as metaethical arguments.
Are you familiar with the philosophers Danny is? Wouldn't it be a good idea to familiarize yourself first, then judge the possibility of gleaning insights from the authors, rather than criticizing him beforehand?
liberty student: GilesStratton: @ LS and Magnus, why the hostility? Same reason you get hostile with Juan and BP. I'm surprised you can't see it.
I'm only really hostile to them after they are too me, moreso in the case of the former than the latter. In any case, I only return as a result of their ad homs, straw men and just generally tendancy to avoid the issue. Although, I usually come across as more hostile than I intend to be purely because of the way I write.
Geoffrey Allan Plauche: GilesStratton:Sorry to interrupt and be a pain in the ass, but for somebody not understanding any of this, where as good places to begin? If it is the perfectionist ethics and rights you're interested in, I recommend looking into the works of Douglas Rasmussen and Douglas Den Uyl (frequent co-authors), each has an article in the JLS, and Roderick Long. Roderick has a seminar on this site on the praxeological foundations of libertarian ethics. Roderick also has a great essay in which he argues that indirect consequentialism (e.g., rule-utilitarianism) is praxeologically unstable.
I began listening to Long's seminar the other day, I've found it very interest. As for Douglas Rasmussen and Den Uyl, I've got their Norms of Liberty sitting on my bookshelf which I intend to read after I finish with Miller's An Introduction to Contemporary Metaethics (recommended by Jon). Any other authors you can recommend?
Well, Geoffrey Allan Plauche gave a better answer than I could, especially if you are looking for writing from a perfectionist libertarian perspective, but I would say from a more broad perspective read Aristotle, Aquinas and Joseph Raz (even though he is an egalitarian liberal, his arguments for the justification of individual liberty are still quite influential on me).
Donny with an A:Geoffrey, don't you mean "See the work of Aristotle?"
Well, you mentioned perfectionist ethics and rights, and Aristotle was not a liberal/libertarian. Fred Miller does find rights language in Aristotle, however, and traces the roots of liberalism back to him in his excellent book Nature, Justice, and Rights in Aristotle's Politics; see also Roderick Long's "Aristotle's Conception of Freedom" (citation on his website) for a necessary amendment to it though.
Donny with an A:Would you really consider Aristotelian views to be perfectionist in nature? For some reason, I thought that perfectionism was an aggregative teleological view, rather than an individualistic one like I took Aristotle's to be...but you're the Aristotelian here; what do you think?
I have a feeling the people who use the terms 'perfectionist' and 'teleology' like that haven't studied the history of philosophy much further back than modernity. :) Aristotle's ethics is individualist, egoist, eudaimonist, teleological and perfectionist. The subtitle of R&DU's Norms of Liberty, btw, is A Perfectionist Basis for Non-Perfectionist Politics.
Jon Irenicus:Are you familiar with the philosophers Danny is? Wouldn't it be a good idea to familiarize yourself first, then judge the possibility of gleaning insights from the authors, rather than criticizing him beforehand? -Jon
I'm familiar with a lot of things, it doesn't make my observations on a particular topic correct, or my time spent being familiar insulating me from criticism.
I'm sure you would agree that in debate, neither claim to immunity holds up. But that's internally consistent, because when questioned closely (as Magnus did), the tactic is to generate a strawman and then feign victimhood. Happens all of the time on this forum, usually by people of the self-described left-libertarian persuasion.
I'm totally not as familiar as Danny is. For example, I couldn't make the argument he did the other day that it was ok to coerce someone to take their property to help someone else. I don't know enough philosophikal stuff to make that argument. And likewise, I just don't dig deep enough into Marx to come up with fringe points that may or may not be compatible with Austrianism. I just know that Marx's ideology in action slaughtered millions of people.
But maybe I'm just being judgmental. Ignorant and judgmental, go figure.
No, but it's necessary to have a fruitful discussion on the topic.
Geoffrey, to be honest, I'm not sure where I got the idea that perfectionism was an aggregative view. The first thing that popped into my head was Gaus' discussion of perfectionism in "Liberal Neutrality: A Radical and Compelling Principle," but he writes:
More generally, contemporary perfectionists argue for government programs that either discourage people from seeking goods that they would not want if they appreciated and acted upon good reasons (cigarettes, other drugs) or else endeavor to provide people with goods that they would want if they were enlightened, or could properly appreciate good reasons (e.g. public broadcasting, art galleries).
And that's definitely an individualistic description. So I don't know what made me think that.
With regard to the use of the term "teleological" as an aggregative term, I'm definitely comfortable with the original use of the word; a lot of people currently working in the Aristotelian tradition still use it that way. The examples that pop into my head right away are Paul Taylor's discussion of "teleological centers of life" in his book, Respect for Nature, and Robin Attfield's argument in "The Good of Trees" (been talking about environmental ethics, can ya tell?). It's just that a lot of people have taken teleological views to refer to broader conceptions of the good which span across individuals, and I think it's okay to allow them to use the term that way. Aside from the inherent difficulties in interpersonal measurement of any plausible conception of "the good," do you think there's anything fundamentally wrong with the use of the term that way?
GilesStratton:Any other authors you can recommend?
In addition to the ones I've already mentioned: Danny mentioned one in particular that I would strongly recommend. He's not an Aristotelian, unfortunately, but David Schmidtz's Elements of Justice is a superb book despite that. Another really good contemporary Aristotelian is Henry Veatch. His theory of rights isn't quite right, but his other work is excellent. Although not a libertarian, Philippa Foot's Natural Goodness is a good book that helped resurrect natural end virtue ethics. Chris Sciabarra has some interesting books on Ayn Rand, Hayek, and dialectical libertarianism. I've found some useful ideas in Hannah Arendt's work, although, again, she's not a libertarian, e.g., The Human Condition. H.B. Acton has a wonderful, shockingly neglected, book The Morals of Markets and Related Essays. Two other good books on morality, markets and business are John Hood's The Heroic Enterprise: Business and the Common Good and Don Lavoie and Emily Chamlee-Wright's Culture and Enterprise: The Development, Representation and Morality of Business. I'm also a fan of Nietzsche; although many of his ideas are wrong, he's very thought-provoking and one of the few philosophers who is actually fun to read. Lester Hunt, a libertarian, has a interesting book Nietzsche and the Origin of Virtue; this chapter in particular is interesting for us.
Jon Irenicus: I'm familiar with a lot of things, it doesn't make my observations on a particular topic correct, or my time spent being familiar insulating me from criticism. No, but it's necessary to have a fruitful discussion on the topic. -Jon
Otherwise the person with less familiarity should just sit there and receive the conclusions and judgment of the person with more familiarity?
You're easily Danny's equal on these subjects. Do you agree with him about Marx and Mises?