" And the reason why I made that conversion is important. Libertarian insights in a lot of ways are basic, Econ 101 insights about the efficiency of free contracting writ large and converted into norms or political values. In other words, I think one of the most essential libertarian fallacies is building a politico-ethical system around positive social science findings (and, I want to stress, basic and introductory social science findings at that). It's kind of an odd way of going about formulating a politico-ethical system. We don't adopt Nietzschean super-man ethics because of evolutionary biology, and we shouldn't simply adopt libertarianism because of these insights. I want to be clear - my point is not that you have to mix up normative and positive findings to come to libertarianism. My point is only that it's possible to get everything there is to get out of libertarianism simply by improving people's knowledge of social science. This is only to say that it's not entirely clear to me what should be important here: teaching people more social science, or sharing libertarianism. But even that isn't entirely satisfying - after all, the reason why I abandoned libertarianism was because I kept learning social science. Yes, the market is efficient and the price mechanism leverages decentralized knowledge. But if institutions don't or can't internalize costs and benefits social scientific insights start to militate against the efficiency of markets. Uncertainty and imperfections ensure that market forces, as fantastic as they are, are going to remain sub-optimal. I haven't abandoned any of the introductory insights in adopting these views - the complement the introductory insights that I still use. I still have a relatively contractarian view of human relations. I still take a fairly atomized, individualist view of things. I still come down on Hayek and Mises's side of the socialist calculation debate. But I can't call myself a libertarian. So, if what we really want is to get people to take the implications of social science more seriously, then its not clear that that would move people towards libertarianism either." -Daniel Kuehn
I think this is an interesting insight, though I find issue with it for this reason: Did Rothbard not "keep learning social science"? What about Walter Block, or other career Austro/Libertarians? Is there an implication that in order to maintain Libertarianism, we must stop at elementary observations? I'm sure DK can clarify if he wishes, and I hope he does. Anyway, thoughts?
re: "I have no idea what Autolykos and DK are arguing about."
I barely know.
From what I can tell, autolykos read things about objectivity and unconstrained optimization into my comments when I didn't mention any of that at all. Then he started insisting I defend certain things - some of which were relevant points, some of which were extraneous, despite the fact that he hasn't put much effort into defending his own premises on math in econ, intersubjective comparisons, constrained optimization, etc.
Student -
Very well put.
When objections are raised its over points like autolykos was making about inter-subjective comparisons, etc. If economics were philosophy this would be an issue. But it's not. It's a science of a complex system. You make simplifying assumptions to sketch out a general process that you think is significant, and you test it. You don't worry about quantitative laws because unlike physics we're unlikely to get quantitative laws. You don't worry about a priorism because we're not doing logic - we're doing science and we're trying to get a workable explanation of the world - not a solution to a logic problem.
If you want to do that, go to a philosophy department.
Student,
True, you know precisely what you are talking about, symbols.
However, the q of what do those symbols represent in the real world, how relevant are they to the real world, how useful are the models, what elements of the real world should be symbolized [usual answer is those that can fit into Procustrean bed of solvable equations], those are sloppy but vital things that still need good ole English.
The carpet is too small to hold all those sweepings
My humble blog
It's easy to refute an argument if you first misrepresent it. William Keizer
Hi DK,
Just curious if you had a chance to read my Misesian methodology article.
"You don't worry about a priorism because we're not doing logic - we're doing science and we're trying to get a workable explanation of the world - not a solution to a logic problem."
Well can't it be said that all human action comes under the guise of logic because it brings with it the necessity of correct reasoning? I mean how you formulate your inferences (whether a priori or a posteriori) makes a huge difference in your conduct does it not?
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Daniel Kuehn:re: "I have no idea what Autolykos and DK are arguing about." I barely know. From what I can tell, autolykos read things about objectivity and unconstrained optimization into my comments when I didn't mention any of that at all. Then he started insisting I defend certain things - some of which were relevant points, some of which were extraneous, despite the fact that he hasn't put much effort into defending his own premises on math in econ, intersubjective comparisons, constrained optimization, etc. Is it possible to make explicit examples to clear up what both mean by objective, subjective, constrained and not constrained etc.. ? "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes, qui custodes custodient? Was that right for 'Who watches the watcher who watches the watchmen?' ? Probably not. Still...your move, my lord." Mr Vimes in THUD! | Post Points: 35
Is it possible to make explicit examples to clear up what both mean by objective, subjective, constrained and not constrained etc.. ?
skylien -
Since I think we both agree of course I think it would be easier just to say that we're both talking about subjectivist constrained optimization and if he's still concerned he can elaborate on why he thinks I'm doing otherwise.
Daniel Kuehn:re: "I have no idea what Autolykos and DK are arguing about." I barely know. From what I can tell, autolykos read things about objectivity and unconstrained optimization into my comments when I didn't mention any of that at all. Then he started insisting I defend certain things - some of which were relevant points, some of which were extraneous, despite the fact that he hasn't put much effort into defending his own premises on math in econ, intersubjective comparisons, constrained optimization, etc. First off, I didn't actually read things about objectivity and unconstrained optimization into your comments. I suspected those things were implied, and I asked you about them to find out whether you actually implied them. You explained that you didn't, which was fine with me. I didn't think there was really any issue here anymore. Second, I wasn't aware that you had asked me to defend my own premises. What I've been trying to do is understand where you're coming from. For example, you here again claim that some things we've discussed are extraneous. But if I disagree, what then? As I pointed out in an earlier post (which you seem to be ignoring), if you don't care about helping me to understand your viewpoint, why are you interacting with me at all? The keyboard is mightier than the gun. Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem. Voluntaryism Forum | Post Points: 20
First off, I didn't actually read things about objectivity and unconstrained optimization into your comments. I suspected those things were implied, and I asked you about them to find out whether you actually implied them. You explained that you didn't, which was fine with me. I didn't think there was really any issue here anymore.
Second, I wasn't aware that you had asked me to defend my own premises. What I've been trying to do is understand where you're coming from. For example, you here again claim that some things we've discussed are extraneous. But if I disagree, what then? As I pointed out in an earlier post (which you seem to be ignoring), if you don't care about helping me to understand your viewpoint, why are you interacting with me at all?
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
Daniel Kuehn:skylien - Since I think we both agree of course I think it would be easier just to say that we're both talking about subjectivist constrained optimization and if he's still concerned he can elaborate on why he thinks I'm doing otherwise. In other words, you're refusing to make explicit examples of what you mean by those terms. How nice. It's too bad you couldn't even be explicit about this refusal. The keyboard is mightier than the gun. Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem. Voluntaryism Forum | Post Points: 20
In other words, you're refusing to make explicit examples of what you mean by those terms. How nice. It's too bad you couldn't even be explicit about this refusal.
re: "For example, you here again claim that some things we've discussed are extraneous. But if I disagree, what then?"
The problem is I have trouble bridging that disagreement if I'm not clear on why you disagree or why you raised those issues in the first place.
re: "As I pointed out in an earlier post (which you seem to be ignoring), if you don't care about helping me to understand your viewpoint, why are you interacting with me at all?"
You all post A LOT, and each post has several questions in it, some of which I don't know how to answer because I don't understand what you're driving at ("i.e. - 'but are there any constraints to the optimization'? I don't know what to say other than 'of course' because I have no sense of why you would think there wouldn't be). So please, don't assume I'm ignoring it and if you think it's absolutely essential to answer, just ask again. I do care - I like interacting with Austrians. But I can't reargue first principles every time I do. If it's necessary for clarification, sure.
Speaking of ignored points - Daniel Sanchez - I read the beginning but have not read the whole thing yet. I'll do my best to try to finish it and perhaps talk about it on my blog.
Cool, thanks. :)
By the way Daniel Kuhen, I just posted a new course you might be interested in enrolling in, if only to keep us honest. ;)
re: "In other words, you're refusing to make explicit examples of what you mean by those terms. How nice. It's too bad you couldn't even be explicit about this refusal."
Jesus! Fine.
An example of "objective value" would be to argue that diamonds have a higher price than bread because they take more labor and capital to produce.
An example of "subjective value" would be to argue that while bread is more valuable to a person an additional unit of bread is less valuable than an additional unit of diamonds because bread is plentiful, and that the price is ultimately determined by the marginal value of these subjective preferences.
An example of constrained optimization is to think of a case where someone has different preferences but a limited budget and must make purchasing and saving choices that maximize their utility subject to the budget they have available.
An example of unconstrained optimization is to think of a case where someone has an infinite amount of money and sets out to satisfy all his desires with it. Unconstrained optimization is essentially meaningless in economics and I have never seen it discussed or done by anyone in the decade that I've been either an economics student or economic analyst.
There are your examples.
Now do you see why I said it's easier to just say "we agree"?
That's wonderful Daniel! Unfortunately, I don't think I can justify shelling out $145 for it. I'll keep Bob honest in his comment section, though :)
Enjoy the course.
Oops, sorry for misspelling your name this whole time.