A pox on all of Walter Block's houses. The interpretation of libertarianism that he promotes reduces to an anti-social, atomistic, anti-consequentialist, relativistic worldview that treats everything but the NAP in a vacuum as being irrelevant. The problem is that social philosophy cannot be reduced to just the NAP by itself, or statism and anti-statism, that there are independant reasons outside of the NAP for considering certain ideas and social customs to simply be incorrect and have negative consequences. Libertarianism does not obligate anyone to be neutral about "social" or "cultural" questions, and the tendency of libertarians to brush off such concerns as irrelevant is part of precisely why most people don't take them seriously in the first place. Because, ultimately, the likelyhood of obtaining and sustaining a free society has a vital causal relationship with the values of the people in a given society. A narrow philosophy of anti-statism in a vacuum, that acts as if any philosophical starting point is just as good as any other for a free society, reduces to a shallow husk that self-detonates.
Brainpolice: A pox on all of Walter Block's houses. The interpretation of libertarianism that he promotes reduces to an anti-social, atomistic, anti-consequentialist, relativistic worldview that treats everything but the NAP in a vacuum as being irrelevant. The problem is that social philosophy cannot be reduced to just the NAP by itself, or statism and anti-statism, that there are independant reasons outside of the NAP for considering certain ideas and social customs to simply be incorrect and have negative consequences. Libertarianism does not obligate anyone to be neutral about "social" or "cultural" questions, and the tendency of libertarians to brush off such concerns as irrelevant is part of precisely why most people don't take them seriously in the first place. Because, ultimately, the likelyhood of obtaining and sustaining a free society has a vital causal relationship with the values of the people in a given society. A narrow philosophy of anti-statism in a vacuum, that acts as if any philosophical starting point is just as good as any other for a free society, reduces to a shallow husk that self-detonates.
I have to agree somewhat with what you are saying [ except the pox part, NAP man ] Perhaps I have yet to fully realize all of Block's writings but he seems only to talk about the most basic of libertarian philosophy. Perhaps philosophy isn't his strong suit and I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. However, I feel like if I were to ask him:
Dr. Block, How do you feel about Iranian women not being able to do one of the most basic rights of organizing a public fashion show on their own property and is there perhaps hope that libertarianism can solve this crisis?
He would simply say 'Iranian women...why should I care about them?'
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
nirgrahamUK: if you are dropping knowledge bombs that can easily be misinterpretted to support naive statists in their arguments we will point them out, to be on guard for them as an aide to each other, and as a flag to pro-statist that this 'ammo' will misfire on them. please forgive us for our trespasses. im sure they will continue.
Then stop reading my statements through a lens of naive libertarianism.
Abstract liberty, like other mere abstractions, is not to be found.
- Edmund Burke
Anarchist Cain: laminustacitus: No, an a priori statement, whether analytic, or synthetic, is true, otherwise it is not an a priori judgment, but an error. So it is only a priori if it is correct?
laminustacitus: No, an a priori statement, whether analytic, or synthetic, is true, otherwise it is not an a priori judgment, but an error.
No, an a priori statement, whether analytic, or synthetic, is true, otherwise it is not an a priori judgment, but an error.
So it is only a priori if it is correct?
The a priori can not lead to a false conclusion.
Anarchist Cain: laminustacitus:One needs to know the basics of the situation before one can make a prediction as to what are the most likely events to occur. And we are incapable of understanding our current state of affairs?
laminustacitus:One needs to know the basics of the situation before one can make a prediction as to what are the most likely events to occur.
And we are incapable of understanding our current state of affairs?
A libertarian revolution will not happen in the status quo, the situation will have to change dramatically.
Anarchist Cain: laminustacitus:Economics does not exist to make predictions, and it cannot make predictions even close to the calibar of the physical sciences because there are far too many factors to account for, and all the information necessary to truly make such a prediction is decentralized throughout the entire economy - by the time you collect it, its relevance to the future has greatly diminished. Tell that to Mises who predicted the Great Depression and Peter Schiff who predicted the housing bubble.
laminustacitus:Economics does not exist to make predictions, and it cannot make predictions even close to the calibar of the physical sciences because there are far too many factors to account for, and all the information necessary to truly make such a prediction is decentralized throughout the entire economy - by the time you collect it, its relevance to the future has greatly diminished.
Tell that to Mises who predicted the Great Depression and Peter Schiff who predicted the housing bubble.
How about we anaylze what I said because you've proved that you did not understand it:
laminustacitus:Economics does not exist to make predictions
Economics is designed to study the causation, and concatenation of economic phenomena; its use is mostly negative, hence being the dismal science, and it tells man more of what he cannot do than what he can do with his society.
laminustacitus:and it cannot make predictions even close to the calibar of the physical sciences
Note here that I am not saying that economics cannot make predictions, but that the predictions in make are not close to the accuracy of those made by the physica sciences. Neither Mises, nor Schiff would be able to predict how long a depression might last, in fact, they could only give guesses at what would by the GDP growth for any nation for any quarter, or what would be the value of the dollar next year. The physical sciences on the other hand, can yield extremely rigorous predictions that puts the predictions of Mises, and Schiff to shame. In addition, predictions in the social sciences are qualitative, and we can only guess at what the quantitative statistics would be.
laminustacitus:because there are far too many factors to account for, and all the information necessary to truly make such a prediction is decentralized throughout the entire economy - by the time you collect it, its relevance to the future has greatly diminished.
Basic Hayekian use of knowledge in society here.
Anarchist Cain: wilderness:Isn't that what libertarians do? I think we are somewhat ambilivent to racism and sexism.
wilderness:Isn't that what libertarians do?
I think we are somewhat ambilivent to racism and sexism.
If it is outside of law (rights), then it is personal and potentially social (social justice). That's still a libertarian approach.
My wife's mother has a cabin at a lake in a community that holds assembly and sets rules backed with repercussions. People that live there sign onto these rules. One rule: Dogs are to be restrained at all times. The communities repercussion if not: Beach pass or dock excess or etc...is taken away. Different repercussions can be applied. That's a community contractual issue based on the contractual usage of the communities property (the beach, dock, etc....). The community voluntarily pays into these common areas for upkeep and usage.
I see social justice being able to apply to racism and sexism in ways that the law doesn't need to step in and intervene. Ostracize being the largest encompassing definitional form, ex. don't shop there, don't talk to him/her, etc.... Voluntary actions.
Nitroadict: liberty student: Plumbline and ancap libertarians oppose all coercion, and support and recognize only voluntary relationships as legitimate. LLs like to spin that as being narrowly anti-state (thin) when in fact it is pervasive and a foundation block of libertarian ideology applicable to each and every relationship. Because it is the foundation for ancap, necessarily an ancap would oppose bossism, sexism, racism, ageism, employeeism, and any and all isms that have disappeared and not yet emerged in social evolution. This is why I reject "thin" & "thick"; I also find these two marketing (more or less, imo) terms are often used in a similar manner as "left" & "right". Left & Right are/were variants on statism, & the attempt transfer this type of dichotomy to libertarianism makes little sense to me.
liberty student: Plumbline and ancap libertarians oppose all coercion, and support and recognize only voluntary relationships as legitimate. LLs like to spin that as being narrowly anti-state (thin) when in fact it is pervasive and a foundation block of libertarian ideology applicable to each and every relationship. Because it is the foundation for ancap, necessarily an ancap would oppose bossism, sexism, racism, ageism, employeeism, and any and all isms that have disappeared and not yet emerged in social evolution.
Plumbline and ancap libertarians oppose all coercion, and support and recognize only voluntary relationships as legitimate. LLs like to spin that as being narrowly anti-state (thin) when in fact it is pervasive and a foundation block of libertarian ideology applicable to each and every relationship. Because it is the foundation for ancap, necessarily an ancap would oppose bossism, sexism, racism, ageism, employeeism, and any and all isms that have disappeared and not yet emerged in social evolution.
This is why I reject "thin" & "thick"; I also find these two marketing (more or less, imo) terms are often used in a similar manner as "left" & "right".
Left & Right are/were variants on statism, & the attempt transfer this type of dichotomy to libertarianism makes little sense to me.
I agree Nitroadict, and that's exactly how I view it too. For as long as I've been in this forum I've never understood this needless spiral/decay.
laminustacitus:The a priori can not lead to a false conclusion.
You are engaging in doublethink. You state that a priori is susceptable to error then you state it cannot lead to a false conclusion.
laminustacitus:A libertarian revolution will not happen in the status quo, the situation will have to change dramatically.
That doesn't answer my question and shows that you are not so apolitical.
laminustacitus:Economics is designed to study the causation, and concatenation of economic phenomena; its use is mostly negative, hence being the dismal science, and it tells man more of what he cannot do than what he can do with his society.
Again you dodge the question. How are Peter Schiff and Ludwig Von Mises able to make predictions concerning economic business cycles? Are you implying that Austrian predictions of perhaps the biggest boom/bust cycles were mere luckly guess work?
laminustacitus:Note here that I am not saying that economics cannot make predictions, but that the predictions in make are not close to the accuracy of those made by the physica sciences. Neither Mises, nor Schiff would be able to predict how long a depression might last, in fact, they could only give guesses at what would by the GDP growth for any nation for any quarter, or what would be the value of the dollar next year. The physical sciences on the other hand, can yield extremely rigorous predictions that puts the predictions of Mises, and Schiff to shame. In addition, predictions in the social sciences are qualitative, and we can only guess at what the quantitative statistics would be.
Well looks like you answered my question. Congradulations everyone who is an Austrian, I guess through enough trial and error we actually have to be right once in a while. I would ask you how physical science predictions could be any more 'valid' then social science predictions. This wonderful positivist approach is rather amusing. Are you by chance a Popperian?
Anarchist Cain: laminustacitus:The a priori can not lead to a false conclusion. You are engaging in doublethink. You state that a priori is susceptable to error then you state it cannot lead to a false conclusion.
No, the logical deduction of the a priori is susceptable to error, not the a priori itself.
Anarchist Cain: laminustacitus:A libertarian revolution will not happen in the status quo, the situation will have to change dramatically. That doesn't answer my question and shows that you are not so apolitical.
I can give an analysis without giving my political opinions - I don't live in a world where all everything I do is libertarian apologetics. In addition, our knowledge (again, basic Hayekian knowledge theory) cannot fully comprehend all the factors that are necessary for truly understanding our contemporary situation, and much of that information, by the time we actually gather it, is already mere historical data with little relevance to the future.
Anarchist Cain: laminustacitus:Economics is designed to study the causation, and concatenation of economic phenomena; its use is mostly negative, hence being the dismal science, and it tells man more of what he cannot do than what he can do with his society. Again you dodge the question. How are Peter Schiff and Ludwig Von Mises able to make predictions concerning economic business cycles? Are you implying that Austrian predictions of perhaps the biggest boom/bust cycles were mere luckly guess work?
They weren't that rigiorous of predictions as far as predictions go in other sciences. Saying that a bust will occur in 2007, or 2008 is not that rigiorous of a prediction. There are far too many factors at play in the social sciences for true predicting, and, as Hayek asserts: "economic theory is confined to describing kinds of patterns which will appear if certain general conditions are satisfied, but can rarely if ever derive from this knowledge any predictions of specific phenomena." (Hayek, [B-13], Studies, p. 35.)
Anarchist Cain:Well looks like you answered my question. Congradulations everyone who is an Austrian, I guess through enough trial and error we actually have to be right once in a while. I would ask you how physical science predictions could be any more 'valid' then social science predictions. This wonderful positivist approach is rather amusing. Are you by chance a Popperian?
The predictions of the physical sciences are far more outstanding than those of the social sciences with respect to predictions, that is just a fact; knowing that does not make one a positivist, or Popperian, and the fact does not make the physical sciences any more valid.
Anarchist Cain:This wonderful positivist approach is rather amusing. Are you by chance a Popperian?
I'm going to strongly suggest you don't throw an ad hominem at me again.
laminustacitus:No, the logical deduction of the a priori is susceptable to error, not the a priori itself.
What is a priori but the logical deduction?
laminustacitus: In addition, our knowledge (again, basic Hayekian knowledge theory) cannot fully comprehend all the factors that are necessary for truly understanding our contemporary situation, and much of that information, by the time we actually gather it, is already mere historical data with little relevance to the future.
Do to free will, nothing is in absolute. However we can deduce what is more likely to happen.
laminustacitus:They weren't that rigiorous of predictions as far as predictions go in other sciences. Saying that a bust will occur in 2007, or 2008 is not that rigiorous of a prediction. There are far too many factors at play in the social sciences for true predicting, and, as Hayek asserts: "economic theory is confined to describing kinds of patterns which will appear if certain general conditions are satisfied, but can rarely if ever derive from this knowledge any predictions of specific phenomena." (Hayek, [B-13], Studies, p. 35.)
It was not rigorous to predict something that a majority of your discipline said was a near impossibility? I take it by your eagerness to degrade the Mises prediction that it poses a threat to your thought process.
laminustacitus:The predictions of the physical sciences are far more outstanding than those of the social sciences with respect to predictions, that is just a fact; knowing that does not make one a positivist, or Popperian, and the fact does not make the physical sciences any more valid.
You are to give evidence to sustain such a claim. Simply stating 'its just a fact' is not enough to establish that natural science predictions are somehow better, more valid then social science predictions.Yet I noticed this wonderful doublethink yet again. You claim that physical sciences are no more valid then the social science and yet you also claim that the physical science predictions are 'more outstanding'. So we are faced with a dilemma..if the predictions of a physical science are more valid then a social science [ higher rigor, greater chance of success, more precise ] then would it not logically follow that the physical science itself asks more of its practitioners then those in the social science thereby making physical science more productive, advanced, precise...in so many word, more valid.
laminustacitus:I'm going to strongly suggest you don't throw an ad hominem at me again.
You will have to explain to me how calling your approach positivistic and asking if you are a straind of positivism is in fact attacking your personal character. Let alone explain how all these replies I gave towards your argument are nothing more then an attack on you for remember, ad hominem is disregarding the individual's argument and attacking solely him.
Anarchist Cain: laminustacitus:No, the logical deduction of the a priori is susceptable to error, not the a priori itself. What is a priori but the logical deduction?
The a priori judgment, and the logical judgment of that a priori judgment are two entirely different things. While the judgment itself is true, the logical deduction of that judgment is falliable due to semblance, which is an error that we subjectively accept as true.
Anarchist Cain: laminustacitus: In addition, our knowledge (again, basic Hayekian knowledge theory) cannot fully comprehend all the factors that are necessary for truly understanding our contemporary situation, and much of that information, by the time we actually gather it, is already mere historical data with little relevance to the future. Do to free will, nothing is in absolute.
Do to free will, nothing is in absolute.
Free will has absolutely no relevance to the subject matter, abosolutely no relevance.
Anarchist Cain:However we can deduce what is more likely to happen.
Deducing what is most likely to happen involves a quantitative analysis since we need probability theory to infer what are the chances of each event occuring. However, with economic predictions, the prediction is what the predictor himself subjectively believes will happen, it is not necessarily the most likely event to hapen; a predictor could predict a black swan, to use N.N. Taleb's terminology, even though a black swan is an event which is, by definition, not likely to happen.
Anarchist Cain: laminustacitus:They weren't that rigiorous of predictions as far as predictions go in other sciences. Saying that a bust will occur in 2007, or 2008 is not that rigiorous of a prediction. There are far too many factors at play in the social sciences for true predicting, and, as Hayek asserts: "economic theory is confined to describing kinds of patterns which will appear if certain general conditions are satisfied, but can rarely if ever derive from this knowledge any predictions of specific phenomena." (Hayek, [B-13], Studies, p. 35.) It was not rigorous to predict something that a majority of your discipline said was a near impossibility?
It was not rigorous to predict something that a majority of your discipline said was a near impossibility?
No, it was not that rigorous of a prediction. It may have been a great prediction, but that does not mean that it was a rigorous prediction. And what is "your discipline"? Are we so swift to throw aside my warning?
Anarchist Cain:I take it by your eagerness to degrade the Mises prediction that it poses a threat to your thought process.
And my post above:
Anarchist Cain: laminustacitus:The predictions of the physical sciences are far more outstanding than those of the social sciences with respect to predictions, that is just a fact; knowing that does not make one a positivist, or Popperian, and the fact does not make the physical sciences any more valid. You are to give evidence to sustain such a claim. Simply stating 'its just a fact' is not enough to establish that natural science predictions are somehow better, more valid then social science predictions.
You are to give evidence to sustain such a claim. Simply stating 'its just a fact' is not enough to establish that natural science predictions are somehow better, more valid then social science predictions.
The physical sciences can predict: eclipses, the trajectory of objects, the velocity of objects, the age of a substance by its half-life, ect. ad infinitum. The social sciences cannot match those listed predictions.
Anarchist Cain:Yet I noticed this wonderful doublethink yet again. You claim that physical sciences are no more valid then the social science and yet you also claim that the physical science predictions are 'more outstanding'.
I stand by that. The social sciences are not about predictions.
Anarchist Cain: So we are faced with a dilemma..if the predictions of a physical science are more valid then a social science [ higher rigor, greater chance of success, more precise ] then would it not logically follow that the physical science itself asks more of its practitioners then those in the social science thereby making physical science more productive, advanced, precise...in so many word, more valid.
The validity of a science is not measured by how neither "outstanding" its predictions, nor how productive its results are, but rather how well its theories describe the phenomena at hand.
Anarchist Cain: laminustacitus:I'm going to strongly suggest you don't throw an ad hominem at me again. You will have to explain to me how calling your approach positivistic and asking if you are a straind of positivism is in fact attacking your personal character. Let alone explain how all these replies I gave towards your argument are nothing more then an attack on you for remember, ad hominem is disregarding the individual's argument and attacking solely him.
No, an ad hominem attack is an attack against the credentials of person in order to weaken the strength of his conclusions. I don't need to go through a long deduction of how calling someone a positivist on these fora is an attack against their character as well. In addition, such personal information is irrelevent to the discussed matter.
laminustacitus: No, an ad hominem attack is an attack against the credentials of person in order to weaken the strength of his conclusions. I don't need to go through a long deduction of how calling someone a positivist on these fora is an attack against their character as well. In addition, such personal information is irrelevent to the discussed matter.
What? Are you saying if you are a positivist or not that is personal information and thus to bring it up is an ad hominem attack? Please say no.
wilderness: laminustacitus: No, an ad hominem attack is an attack against the credentials of person in order to weaken the strength of his conclusions. I don't need to go through a long deduction of how calling someone a positivist on these fora is an attack against their character as well. In addition, such personal information is irrelevent to the discussed matter. What? Are you saying if you are a positivist or not that is personal information and thus to bring it up is an ad hominem attack? Please say no.
Context is everything.
Why are you purposly censoring my statements?
I'm taking some time off the fora, frustration has been consuming me and clouding my judgment, so I won't be responding to any posts of mine for a while. If you respond to me though, I will get back to them once I return.
laminustacitus: I'm taking some time off the fora, frustration has been consuming me and clouding my judgment, so I won't be responding to any posts of mine for a while. If you respond to me though, I will get back to them once I return.
I'm willing to forgive and forget if you return my username. We don't even have to talk to each other again.
There, show is over. Moving on.
Anarchist Cain:Like I said, He has many sound libertarian ideas, he just lacks tact.
That's his appeal honestly. As you become increasingly more radical, there are less people who appeal to that mindset. Block drops bombs and doesn't waste time prettying up the message. The sheer amount of outreach he does is amazing.
Brainpolice: A pox on all of Walter Block's houses.
A pox on all of Walter Block's houses.
Every day I pray for the childishness to end.
liberty student: That's his appeal honestly. As you become increasingly more radical, there are less people who appeal to that mindset. Block drops bombs and doesn't waste time prettying up the message. The sheer amount of outreach he does is amazing.
That is why I like him too, there is a certain face value honesty with someone who does not make his message pretty....
liberty student: Brainpolice: A pox on all of Walter Block's houses. Every day I pray for the childishness to end.
I don't pray, I just ignore it...
It sounds like the ocean, smells like fresh mountain air, and tastes like the union of peanut butter and chocolate. ~Liberty Student
Anarchist Cain:Perhaps I have yet to fully realize all of Block's writings but he seems only to talk about the most basic of libertarian philosophy. Perhaps philosophy isn't his strong suit and I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Block doesn't claim to know what he does not know. That outrages the philosopher class, who claim to know what they cannot know.
As we've seen revealed earlier this morning and yesterday, there are sects of libertarianism who only pay lip service to voluntarism. When Block takes voluntarism to its unlikely extremes, it shows how divergent actually respecting the freedom of others is from the sort of society certain sects desire and promote.
Anarchist Cain:He would simply say 'Iranian women...why should I care about them?'
He's asking it as an open ended question. People see it as dismissive, but he's pursuing the socratic method. Explain why HE should care about an Iranian women's fashion show, when he has a massive body of work, supporting the most extreme conceptions of property rights today.
This LL conception of "every cause is my cause" is ugly and dangerous because it implies collectivism. When someone chooses not to participate? POX ON THEIR HOUSES. We've seen it all before. You're a bad person if you don't care about each and every injustice.
I'm not going to spend a lot of time defending him, because I suspect based on recent posts, you don't have as much interest in libertarian theory, as some forms of libertarian philosophy. And my experience with that disconnect, is that it can't be crossed. The philosophers want an idealized world regardless of theory, and the theorists want the freedom to choose as much, or no philosophy if the mood strikes them.
Walter Block is my favourite
I know I shouldnt have favourites....but i do
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
LS:This LL conception of "every cause is my cause" is ugly and dangerous because it implies collectivism.
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: False.It is not collectivism and it ís not, by any means, something the 'left' libertarians invented.
Two strawmen in one sentence. That is praiseworthy.
Juan:The reason why liberals today are concerned with those issues is that they inherited them from classical liberals.
The reason why liberals today are concerned is because they have removed the concept of property rights, moving these issues out of the market place and into the political sphere.
nirgrahamUK: Walter Block is my favourite I know I shouldnt have favourites....but i do
I find things I like about almost everyone's position. I'm not exactly a Hoppean, but he has a lot of great ideas. Same with Rothbard, Block and even Long.
I have to say, Block is one of the most heroic because he is out there engaging the world. He's worked outside academia, and he's always made himself available to media and debate. It is easy to tour the right wing lecture circuit or to preach within the blogosphere of the libertarian left. It takes courage to do what Dr. Block and Tom Woods do by carrying the argument to the statists on their turf.
liberty student:That's his appeal honestly. As you become increasingly more radical, there are less people who appeal to that mindset. Block drops bombs and doesn't waste time prettying up the message. The sheer amount of outreach he does is amazing.
I don't find it appealing. I mean he makes libertarian arguments, there is no contesting that. I just think he could being saying it better. He isn't going to change though and I will listen to his arguments but I will not find them as appealing as other lecturers. This argument is really just about personal preference.
liberty student:As we've seen revealed earlier this morning and yesterday, there are sects of libertarianism who only pay lip service to voluntarism. When Block takes voluntarism to its unlikely extremes, it shows how divergent actually respecting the freedom of others is from the sort of society certain sects desire and promote.
I concede that his extremism is a necessary function of libertarianism because it does show how far individuals believe in libertarianism.
liberty student:He's asking it as an open ended question. People see it as dismissive, but he's pursuing the socratic method. Explain why HE should care about an Iranian women's fashion show, when he has a massive body of work, supporting the most extreme conceptions of property rights today.
Asking him if he thinks libertarianism can help liberalize a people is not asking them to divert all their research to a singular issue. It is merely asking his viewpoint on a certain issue. Is not libertarianism the proponounce of individual freedom? Certainly we all concede that if the state were to be abolished then we would have more freedom, but does one have more freedom simply because we are not constantly being punched in the face or threatened to be punched in the face?
liberty student:This LL conception of "every cause is my cause" is ugly and dangerous because it implies collectivism. When someone chooses not to participate? POX ON THEIR HOUSES. We've seen it all before. You're a bad person if you don't care about each and every injustice.
I think that is a mischaracterization.
liberty student:I'm not going to spend a lot of time defending him, because I suspect based on recent posts, you don't have as much interest in libertarian theory, as some forms of libertarian philosophy. And my experience with that disconnect, is that it can't be crossed. The philosophers want an idealized world regardless of theory, and the theorists want the freedom to choose as much, or no philosophy if the mood strikes them.
What happened to you during your absence? The only thing I actually talk about in this group in libertarian theory. I'm not an economist, I concede that. I am a historian and I have recenetly gotten into philosophy. By simply finding Block's presentation of libertarian brutish, does not catergorize me as a 'soft' libertarian.
Anarchist Cain: liberty student:This LL conception of "every cause is my cause" is ugly and dangerous because it implies collectivism. When someone chooses not to participate? POX ON THEIR HOUSES. We've seen it all before. You're a bad person if you don't care about each and every injustice. I think that is a mischaracterization.
Sadly it is not. If you have any LL buddies, ask them what they think of Tom Woods and Meltdown.
Anarchist Cain:What happened to you during your absence?
I came to the conclusion that most libertarians are ideologues and that arguing with ideologues by and large was a poor use of my time.
Anarchist Cain:The only thing I actually talk about in this group in libertarian theory. I'm not an economist, I concede that. I am a historian and I have recenetly gotten into philosophy. By simply finding Block's presentation of libertarian brutish, does not catergorize me as a 'soft' libertarian.
My statement about going soft was somewhat tongue and cheek. I'm sorry you took it seriously. My bad.
liberty student: Sadly it is not. If you have any LL buddies, ask them what they think of Tom Woods and Meltdown.
Actually I have none. Why don't you give me the reader's digest. I like Tom Wood's writings. They are very humorous
liberty student:I came to the conclusion that most libertarians are ideologues and that arguing with ideologues by and large was a poor use of my time
We are all individuals homie. We are all unique and I know it is difficult to remember that all the time.
liberty student:My statement about going soft was somewhat tongue and cheek. I'm sorry you took it seriously. My bad.
I remain pure to the ideology. Just libertarian allows for all sorts of individuals, perhaps I am more of an idealist. It is just my nature.
AC, I don't have time to reply to this right now. Already spent too much time posting today.
I will try to get back to you later.
liberty student:Yes I can. I supplied a source.
Of course you can't say for sure that the state hasn't allocated resources in the way that the market would, this is the crux of the socialist calculation debate, after all. Here's one interesting aspect of the argument, even if the state managed to allocate resources in line with the desires of consumers, there's simply no way they could know for sure. This is exactly what Mises means when he says that socialist economic planning is "impossible". It's just not rational.
liberty student: If they get their resources and wages through taxation (all varieties) then they are parasites. There is no difference between a military contractor and a publicly funded research project. They both gain their funding outside the market via privilege, and they both claim that such a funding scheme is necessary to provide so-called public goods. This is basic Hoppean class analysis which I believe has a place here at LvMI.
If they get their resources and wages through taxation (all varieties) then they are parasites. There is no difference between a military contractor and a publicly funded research project. They both gain their funding outside the market via privilege, and they both claim that such a funding scheme is necessary to provide so-called public goods.
This is basic Hoppean class analysis which I believe has a place here at LvMI.
Clearly, there are public goods. Hoppe's analysis in later works says as much. In Democracy: The God that Failed Hoppe presents institutions that may provide goods in a way that differs from the traditional market provision of such goods and services. Of course, this by no means implies that the state should provide them, but I don't think that's necessary for the public goods theory. All that one needs to demonstrate is that certain goods are harder to provide on the market that others and that certain institutional arrangements are necessary for the provision of such goods, one such institution is the state. But it is by no means the only, or the most efficient institution that can provide such services. Of course, a fair reading to various authors who have written on the subject would have prevented such confusion. Hoppe, however, would rather caricature such great economists as Tullock and Buchanan.
As for getting resources out of taxation, you have no way to prove that people would not have given their money to state without taxation, for the reasons I mentioned earlier. In any case, the sort of language you use, such as "parasites" runs counter to Austrian methodology. Perhaps you see them as parasites, I certainly do not. Absent some sort of value judgement you can't say that for certain. So much for value free class analysis. In any case, Austrians reject interpersonal comparisons of utility, as such they simply can't say that state employed academics represent a net loss.
liberty student: If you valued economic science, you wouldn't think subsidies are wonderful. You would see them (outside the moral argument) as inefficient or at the least, untested. What I surmise you value, is the privilege you can receive as a student and later scientist, if the public pays for your work, without having to prove the worth of said work, or your capacity to carry it out, in a market atmosphere. That's the thrust of all state subsidy. To compromise capitalists, scientists, educators, social workers, by offering them an opportunity to operate without competition in the so-called "public interest".
If you valued economic science, you wouldn't think subsidies are wonderful. You would see them (outside the moral argument) as inefficient or at the least, untested. What I surmise you value, is the privilege you can receive as a student and later scientist, if the public pays for your work, without having to prove the worth of said work, or your capacity to carry it out, in a market atmosphere.
That's the thrust of all state subsidy. To compromise capitalists, scientists, educators, social workers, by offering them an opportunity to operate without competition in the so-called "public interest".
Your use "Inefficient" contains implicit moralizing. Here's the general thrust of arguments against subsidies: you subsidize something and you get more of it than the market would have demanded. Well, that's true, but in the case of science, it doesn't bother me in the slightest. As I said, I value science very highly, and the fact that there may be more of it, is all very good in that regard. Especially when I don't really care whether economic science happens to be Austrian or not, only if it is good or bad economics.
As for the alleged lack of competition in academia, is that really so? It certainly doesn't seem to square with the facts, namely that being a tenured professor at a top research university is a very difficult job to land.
liberty student:Funny how in one breath you can claim no one can know, and then a mere sentence later, claim perfect knowledge for yourself. What is funny, is not that you're contradicting yourself, but that you were actually wrong on both statements.
No, I can't say for sure, you're quite correct. What I can say is this: Menger, Mises and Hayek all worked for the Austrian government and there's a lot of evidence that those jobs were quite important in their intellectual development. If you want to say that the government artificially pushes up the demand for university educations, go for it. I think you'd be able to make quite a point. On the other hand, it also means that the jobs of Hoppe, Rothbard, Block, Salerno, Boettke, Klein, Mises, Hayek, Maltsev, Herbener, Huerta de Soto, Huelsmann, Kirzner, Rizzo and almost every other Austrian economist would be looking a lot less secure.
Juan: Mainstream academics are not voluntarily paid, they are subsidized by the state - they are parasites - it's a fact - not a value judgement
That's an assertion, nothing more. I want some sort of proof that state academics (why not Austrians? Some of whom are paid by the state) are objectively parasites. Because as far as I can tell that's merely your opinion, not mine. I value the work they do.
Juan: LOL. You keep calling pathetic state propaganda 'science'...
Are they propagandists because they're paid by the state? Because if so, you're going to have to somehow exempt Austrians from this charge or yours, many of whom receive state money in some way or another. Or are they propagandists because they defend the state? Because if you want to choose that route you're left with the difficult implication that Mises was a state propagandist becuase he way a minarchist, at the same time he was one of the most ardent defenders of the free market, this is.
liberty student: I don't think Giles was ever a libertarian, folks just assumed because he was into Hoppe he would be sympathetic to ancap. He's always been pro-privilege and pro-state, he's just more obvious about it now. And I don't have a problem with that (as internet discussion), so long as people are honest about it, and acknowledge they view privilege as legit, instead of beating around the bush, trying to obfuscate a penetrating analysis into the legitimacy of those claims for monopoly and privilege. Giles is clear, he likes when the state steals to provide things he likes. He thinks this is not only good, but economically sound. Which is why prior to my last leave, I had stopped acknowledging him altogether, because that is largely what I do with the supporters and officials of my state.
I don't think Giles was ever a libertarian, folks just assumed because he was into Hoppe he would be sympathetic to ancap. He's always been pro-privilege and pro-state, he's just more obvious about it now. And I don't have a problem with that (as internet discussion), so long as people are honest about it, and acknowledge they view privilege as legit, instead of beating around the bush, trying to obfuscate a penetrating analysis into the legitimacy of those claims for monopoly and privilege.
Giles is clear, he likes when the state steals to provide things he likes. He thinks this is not only good, but economically sound.
Which is why prior to my last leave, I had stopped acknowledging him altogether, because that is largely what I do with the supporters and officials of my state.
Yes, I'm pro state when the state provides services I value, you applying the "S" word to me, doesn't bother me. Because I'm pretty much uninterested of all discussions concerning politics. I don't think the state is illegitimate entirely no, and I've not seen one proof demonstrating so. Here's the thing, I'd argue that everybody here would value the state far greater if they felt that it provided services they value. Which is why they do educate themselves about economics. You see, if it could be proven that without the state, society would descend in to chaos and poverty and crime would be very prevelant, few people would be so keen to call themselves anarchists.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
liberty student: AC, I don't have time to reply to this right now. Already spent too much time posting today. I will try to get back to you later.
No worries. I am always around.
GilesStratton: I'm pro state when the state provides services I value,
you value food, you value clothing, you value housing, you value healthcare. according to your own fallacious arguments, if the state 'subsidized' these you would be for it.
but of course then you would be an idiot socialist of the kind Mises despaired of.
you used to be better at economics.
nirgrahamUK: GilesStratton: I'm pro state when the state provides services I value, you value food, you value clothing, you value housing, you value healthcare. according to your own fallacious arguments, if the state 'subsidized' these you would be for it. but of course then you would be an idiot socialist of the kind Mises despaired of. you used to be better at economics.
I get it, you're going to be really pedantic to make it look like you "win". Let me put it another way, I'm "pro-state" (whatever that means) when it provides services I value, where the free market couldn't. Is that better?
You purist ancap types are seriously cool, I wish I could be like you.
You deserve this UK.
GilesStratton: You purist ancap types are seriously cool, I wish I could be like you.
I know you do.
GilesStratton:Is that better?
nirgrahamUK: GilesStratton:Is that better? of course not... its like you didnt even understand my criticism. i pitched it at playschool level so you would have a chance to respond. I figured if I went all Austrian on you your brain would explode.
Well, it wasn't quite at a playschool level, they already know that sentences begin with capital letters. As for Austrian economics, well, I would still consider myself something of an "Austrian" economist-in-training, so I'm not sure what you think you're proving there. Your attempt to show that my argument proved too much failed.
I presume your argument was going to go something like this: he says he values the state when it provides goods he values, he values food, therefore the state should provide food, therefore he's a bad "economist". Now, I clarified my original argument to point out that actually I only value goods provided by the state when the market fails to provide them. Notice, I never said any particular goods or services fall into this category, just that if they did and the state were to provide them I would value the state. Secondly, I never said that state provision of such goods and services is "efficient", I can trace the consequences of state provision of goods and services well enough.
GilesStratton: Well, it wasn't quite at a playschool level, they already know that sentences begin with capital letters. As for Austrian economics, well, I would still consider myself something of an "Austrian" economist-in-training, so I'm not sure what you think you're proving there. Your attempt to show that my argument proved too much failed. I presume your argument was going to go something like this: he says he values the state when it provides goods he values, he values food, therefore the state should provide food, therefore he's a bad "economist". Now, I clarified my original argument to point out that actually I only value goods provided by the state when the market fails to provide them. Notice, I never said any particular goods or services fall into this category, just that if they did and the state were to provide them I would value the state. Secondly, I never said that state provision of such goods and services is "efficient", I can trace the consequences of state provision of goods and services well enough.
Now the question is what can't the free market provide that the magical state can?
GilesStratton: Now, I clarified my original argument to point out that actually I only value goods provided by the state when the market fails to provide them
well, the market has failed to provide MonarchyLand, a themepark celebrating royalty and feudalism through the mode of rollercoasters, as you value monarchy land and perhaps an infinite number of goods that you close your eyes and daydream about, robot hookers, rocketpowered shuttlecocks, submarine cars, Full set of books from the "GilesStratton is the cleverest Human of All Times" collection, that are not currently for sale on the market, but some of which could be achieved by the state diverting large resources.
your support for the state engaging in subsidy happens when? when they have hampered the market and the market doesnt have an outcome you like? when they have hampered the market and you imagine whether or not the unhampered market would provide? when the unhampered market doesnt provide?