Members may be interested in partaking of this:
Milton Friedman: "There is no Austrian economics—only good economics, and bad economics." Can someone please explain to me how this pseudoscience even came about?
Milton Friedman:
"There is no Austrian economics—only good economics, and bad economics."
Can someone please explain to me how this pseudoscience even came about?
-- Is there such a thing called "Austrian Economics"?
Are you Richard Dawkins?
Austrian economics started with Carl Menger, one of the individuals who inaugurated the marginalist revolution. It is the only school that is through and through subjectivist, and it also eschews the physics envy that consumes most mainstream economists. Far from being "pseudo-science", it is the correct way of studying economics. And as for Friedman's statement, that is trivially true, but economists do align themselves to particular schools of thinkers so in a sense it's utterly false. I'm not going to waste my time on angry little leftists whose only purpose in life is to be beaten down, though. If they want to cure their ignorance, there are some very good works documenting the history of the Austrian School on the Mises website. Ignorant clowns are not my preferred counterparties in discussions.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Considering this is on a Dawkins website, I am sure there is point in engagement. Recently, Dawkins made the argument that evolution is supported by the diversity of dogs that has come about in the last 20 000 years. I just about laughed that a renowned biologist would use an example of articial selection to support natural selection. Intelligent design arguments are full of crap, but what a shitty response that was.
http://aestheticbend.blogspot.com/
aestheticbend: Considering this is on a Dawkins website, I am sure there is point in engagement. Recently, Dawkins made the argument that evolution is supported by the diversity of dogs that has come about in the last 20 000 years. I just about laughed that a renowned biologist would use an example of articial selection to support natural selection. Intelligent design arguments are full of crap, but what a shitty response that was.
Why? Artificial selection and natural selection are essentially very similar events. Richard Dawkins uses the example of artificial selection to display how selective pressures distinguish characteristics of species over time. (not that it has anything to do with austrian economics)
Thank You - Brandon
Considering this is on a Dawkins website, I am sure there is point in engagement.
What would that be? The satisfaction of crushing the spirit of smarmy, pseudo-intellectual pricks?
There is no statism, only good public policy and bad public policy.
There is no Christianity, only truth and falsehood.
There is no X, only good what-X-purports-to-solve and bad what-X-purports-to-solve.
This is just nonsense. The term "Austrian economics" refers to a group of beliefs about economics, just as "statism" refers to a group of beliefs about public policy. It is true that these beliefs are either good (true) or bad (false), but that doesn't mean the term "Austrian economics" has no descriptive value.
And some of us call Freedomain a cult?
do we get free cheezeburger in socielism?
Jon Irenicus: Considering this is on a Dawkins website, I am sure there is point in engagement. What would that be? The satisfaction of crushing the spirit of smarmy, pseudo-intellectual pricks?
Yes by being smarmy and prick-like himself.
I mean the guy is obviously intelligent and I do enjoy reading some of his stuff, but I think he takes the whole "people who believe in God are delusional and stupid" thing to a bit of a silly and absurd level, tbh.
sirmonty: I mean the guy is obviously intelligent and I do enjoy reading some of his stuff, but I think he takes the whole "people who believe in God are delusional and stupid" thing to a bit of a silly and absurd level, tbh.
Exactly, He's a very intelligent biologist, but I don't think he realizes that religion is only dangerous when it takes the form of the state.
'Exactly, He's a very intelligent biologist, but I don't think he realizes that religion is only dangerous when it takes the form of the state."
I disagree. Religion can be dangerous in many more forms besides the state!
Daimona: I disagree. Religion can be dangerous in many more forms besides the state!
How?
10Brandonr: Daimona: I disagree. Religion can be dangerous in many more forms besides the state! How?
Faith-based religions stop the thought process. If you accept "X" is true on faith why do you need to give it further thought? That said, if you define "religion" in such a way that no faith is required (i.e. a construct of rituals and ideas) it might be possible to have a religion that is not dangerous.
I am an eklektarchist not an anarchist.
Educational Pamphlet Mises Group
ryanpatgray: Faith-based religions stop the thought process. If you accept "X" is true on faith why do you need to give it further thought? That said, if you define "religion" in such a way that no faith is required (i.e. a construct of rituals and ideas) it might be possible to have a religion that is not dangerous.
Well I certainly agree, religion may very well be illogical, and accepting faith as if it were reason may be unintelligible to those who adhere to the facts, but I still don't see how it's inherently dangerous or evil.
I am trying very hard not to speak in absolutes, ...I think I said that I believe religion CAN BE dangerous in more ways than just the state. There are many times throughout history where religions have altered individual lives in negative ways! I am not going to state any of them here. Religion has been used both on social levels as well as state levels to coerce behaviors of individuals in a society for numerous reason ranging anywhere from the altruistic to the down right repugnant!.
Daimona: I am trying very hard not to speak in absolutes, ...I think I said that I believe religion CAN BE dangerous in more ways than just the state. There are many times throughout history where religions have altered individual lives in negative ways! I am not going to state any of them here. Religion has been used both on social levels as well as state levels to coerce behaviors of individuals in a society for numerous reason ranging anywhere from the altruistic to the down right repugnant!.
Sure a religious belief may promote or encourage dangerous or coercive behaviors, but so can I, you, and a million other influences. Religion, as a general term, is not, though, inherently dangerous. It's a form of collectivism to claim that religion is evil. But maybe I'm just divulging too deeply into semantics.
Seen the "Religion is evil" statement and desided to drop by with a myth to please you libertarians.
And the myth goes as following: In Talmudic Tradition Religin and State were invented by the very same person. Here's Genesis (ch. 10)account:
8 And Cush begat Nimrod: he began to be a mighty one in the earth.9 He was a mighty hunter before the LORD: wherefore it is said, Even as Nimrod the mighty hunter before the LORD.10 And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar.11 Out of that land went forth Asshur, and builded Nineveh, and the city Rehoboth, and Calah,12 And Resen between Nineveh and Calah: the same is a great city.
Here, argues the Talmud, the word "kingdom" mentioned first time in the scriptures, and "begining" can also be undesrtood as "initiation". And since Babel is the place of the Tower, Talmudic sages connect the central ideology of the Tower, adn the Kingdom of Nimrod.
Now there is archaeological proof to this, for Shinar is Shumer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shumer
"By the late 4th millennium BC, Sumer was divided into about a dozen independent city-states, whose limits were defined by canals and boundary stones. Each was centered on a temple dedicated to the particular patron god or goddess of the city and ruled over by a priestly governor (ensi) or by a king (lugal) who was intimately tied to the city's religious rites."
So, rejoice you libertarian atheist!
"We are nothing. Mankind is all. By the grace of our brothers are we allowed our lives. We exist through, by and for our brothers who are the State. Amen."
Jonatan K: Seen the "Religion is evil" statement and desided to drop by with a myth to please you libertarians. And the myth goes as following: In Talmudic Tradition Religin and State were invented by the very same person. Here's Genesis (ch. 10)account: 8 And Cush begat Nimrod: he began to be a mighty one in the earth.9 He was a mighty hunter before the LORD: wherefore it is said, Even as Nimrod the mighty hunter before the LORD.10 And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar.11 Out of that land went forth Asshur, and builded Nineveh, and the city Rehoboth, and Calah,12 And Resen between Nineveh and Calah: the same is a great city. Here, argues the Talmud, the word "kingdom" mentioned first time in the scriptures, and "begining" can also be undesrtood as "initiation". And since Babel is the place of the Tower, Talmudic sages connect the central ideology of the Tower, adn the Kingdom of Nimrod. Now there is archaeological proof to this, for Shinar is Shumer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shumer "By the late 4th millennium BC, Sumer was divided into about a dozen independent city-states, whose limits were defined by canals and boundary stones. Each was centered on a temple dedicated to the particular patron god or goddess of the city and ruled over by a priestly governor (ensi) or by a king (lugal) who was intimately tied to the city's religious rites." So, rejoice you libertarian atheist!
....
10Brandonr:Religion, as a general term, is not, though, inherently dangerous.
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."
Juan: 10Brandonr:Religion, as a general term, is not, though, inherently dangerous. Revealed religions are inherently absurd and revealed religions have been used as tools for causing a lot of damage a lot of times. Church and state have been sides of the same coin for thousand of years. If you see no danger in all those things...so be it.
Of course, whenever we show people that the church is evil and abolish it people have been free and prosperous. Communist China and the USSR illustrate this quite nicely.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
I hope in a free society everyone can mind their own damn business, and live and let live. Gay, Religious, Atheist, Straight, White, Black, let's just do what we feel comfortable with, not be judgmental of other people's personal business, and focus on increasing prosperity.
The militant liberals are just as silly as the militant conservatives.
Juan: 10Brandonr:Religion, as a general term, is not, though, inherently dangerous. Revealed religions are inherently absurd and revealed religions have been used as tools for causing a lot of damage a lot of times. Church and state have been sides of the same coin for thousands of years. If you see no danger in all those things...so be it.
But pretty much anything can be used as a tool for causing a lot of damage. The idea of "democracy" and "freedom"(though obviously not freedom) were some of the reasons for the US to kill people in Afghanistan and Iraq. The church and state have been on sides of the same coin for a long time- but so have corporations and states. Anything partnering with the state turns dangerous.
I would argue that religion itself leads to authoritarianism. If B thinks A can talk to God, B might tend to listen to him. Even if A tells him to make C submit to the authority of A. Although, I think you have a point in that all irrational beliefs can lead to authoritarianism, but I think democracy has become a religion at this point. The only difference is that god has become known as "the people", and voting is the new sacrament.
I would argue that religion and state lead to authoritarianism, particularly theocratic authoritarianism. Religion that cannot inherently violate the non-aggression principle, cannot logically be evil, only illogical. In the same sense that a "stupid" person that cannot violate the non-aggression principle cannot logically be evil, he can only be stupid.
My argument makes the libertarian assumption that evil is coercion against the life, liberty, and/or property of another individual.
10Brandonr: My argument makes the libertarian assumption that evil is coercion against the life, liberty, and/or property of another individual.
Then you must expang the religion to any moral philosophy that coerce. If in my ethical system it is alright to vilolate private property if its owner does X (givirng X is not evil in your system), then the philosophy is evil.
10Brandonr: aestheticbend: Considering this is on a Dawkins website, I am sure there is point in engagement. Recently, Dawkins made the argument that evolution is supported by the diversity of dogs that has come about in the last 20 000 years. I just about laughed that a renowned biologist would use an example of articial selection to support natural selection. Intelligent design arguments are full of crap, but what a shitty response that was. Why? Artificial selection and natural selection are essentially very similar events. Richard Dawkins uses the example of artificial selection to display how selective pressures distinguish characteristics of species over time. (not that it has anything to do with austrian economics)
Not really. Natural selection results in a decrease in the genetic diversity of a species. So while it can explain how a species changes, it does not explain how complex organism have descended from less complex ones. Thus the need for Neo-Darwinism to include Variation.
Peace
Heartless Voluntaryist: I would argue that religion itself leads to authoritarianism. If B thinks A can talk to God, B might tend to listen to him. Even if A tells him to make C submit to the authority of A. Although, I think you have a point in that all irrational beliefs can lead to authoritarianism, but I think democracy has become a religion at this point. The only difference is that god has become known as "the people", and voting is the new sacrament.
I would argue that you're an idiot.
Juan:How does your non-sequitur invalidate historical facts, please ? If anything it shows, as was pointed out a few times, that communism is just another set of irrational beliefs.
You said religion was cause, the USSR clearly disproves that.
Juan:Are you playing dumb ? Religion was the cause at times A, B, C, N, communism was the cause at time X. All those are historical facts. Did you read Bastiat's quote ? What's your learned opinion ? Maybe Bastiat was cultural marxist ? Thomas Paine too ?
That's funny, I don't remember saying anything about cultural marxism. And yes I did read the quotation, what's your point?
GilesStratton: Heartless Voluntaryist: I would argue that religion itself leads to authoritarianism. If B thinks A can talk to God, B might tend to listen to him. Even if A tells him to make C submit to the authority of A. Although, I think you have a point in that all irrational beliefs can lead to authoritarianism, but I think democracy has become a religion at this point. The only difference is that god has become known as "the people", and voting is the new sacrament. I would argue that you're an idiot.
I can see you have good arguing skills with the ad hominems and all. I think your a good example of religion causing people to abandon reason though. Instead of engaging in intellectual debate you call names and say that the USSR disproves the point that religion leads to authoritarianism.
Heartless Voluntaryist:I can see you have good arguing skills with the ad hominems and all. I think your a good example of religion causing people to abandon reason though. Instead of engaging in intellectual debate you call names and say that the USSR disproves the point that religion leads to authoritarianism.
And I can see you have comprehension issues.
No, you were setting up a strawman. Nobody claimed that the absence of religion led to people becoming rational and respectful of property rights. So your point about communism is invalid. If any thing it just goes to prove that all irrational beliefs can be harmful.
For what it's worth...http://libertarian-left.blogspot.com/2008/12/on-austrian-economics.html
Heartless Voluntaryist:Nobody claimed that the absence of religion led to people becoming rational and respectful of property rights.
And yet it was implied.
...but, I think your forgetting that religion is not just any moral philosophy that encourages or practices coercion. If you're saying that any belief that justifies coercion to be evil than you're totally rational, but if you're implying that religion (def: a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.) in general is, in the libertarian sense, evil, then I think you're dead wrong.