GilesStratton: I don't think I've said it abstracts anything, at least, not in this post. So either you've not understood what I've said or I haven't understood what you've said. If you'd like to reformulate your question in light of this, I'd be happen to answer it.
I don't think I've said it abstracts anything, at least, not in this post. So either you've not understood what I've said or I haven't understood what you've said. If you'd like to reformulate your question in light of this, I'd be happen to answer it.
ok
I don't know what you mean by this: "Austrian economics can show the nature of the market system and government intervention...'
And I was asking, to put it another way, what "nature" (to use this natural law concept you provided) does Austrian economics show... "of the market system and government intervention."?
nirgrahamUK: do you remember the line of LS that you were critiquing? what premise of LS's would Mises have disagreed with given that Mises was both a great economist and a classical liberal ?
do you remember the line of LS that you were critiquing? what premise of LS's would Mises have disagreed with given that Mises was both a great economist and a classical liberal ?
See, this is what happens when you ignore the context of a given quotation in order to make a point. LibertyStudent and I were originally discussing whether or not it is correct that Austrians are unprincipled for working for the state. My point was that this isn't the case, since one needn't be a card carrying libertarian in order to be considered a member of the Austrian school. Without some sort of value judgement an Austrian economist is merely that, an economist, perhaps even one that recognizes all sorts of government inefficiency. But if one is merely an Austrian economist who makes no normative claims about the state then it is difficult to see how one can recognize their employment as inefficient, much less be unprincipled because of their line of work.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
wilderness:And I was asking, to put it another way, what "nature" (to use this natural law concept you provided) does Austrian economics show... "of the market system and government intervention."?
Austrian economics can show what the results will be of a given institutional arrangement. I don't see what is so difficult to understand about this. Austrian economics can then be used by historians to determine which causal factors were in play at a given moment in time. I not once invoked natural law which is a normative ethical theory. So as far as I'm aware, you're just confused at to the original content of my post. But if this is so I'm not sure why you proceeded to challenge me in the way that you did.
GilesStratton: Without some sort of value judgement an Austrian economist is merely that, an economist, perhaps even one that recognizes all sorts of government inefficiency.
but we were not talking about this or that economist, we were talking about the class of economists a huge subset of whichare state subsidised. and we were discussing the trends this would induce
:Even Michael Porter, Harvard Business School management specialist, avowedly not amarket ideologue, has written on the practical effect of subsidies:“Subsidy delays adjustment and innovation rather than promoting it…Ongoing subsidies dullincentives and create an attitude of dependence. Government support makes it difficult to getindustry to invest and take risk without it. Attention is focused on renewing subsidies rather thancreating true competitive advantage. One subsidized industry propagates its noncompetitivenessto others. Once started, subsidy is difficult to stop. What is worse, subsidies to one ailing industryencourage others to seek them.
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
Two questions before I post:
Now as for the bulk of your post, I'm going to ask that you provide some sort of criteria with which we can determine whether or not somebody is a parasite before you make such bold statements. As goes your second point, and the quotation you provided, I'd argue that it's not really relevant. Even if you think that subsidies do slow down economic development, this is long way from proving that subsidies to intellectuals cause them to support statist policies. In any case, the economist in question is presumably speaking about adjustment in line with the desires of consumers. I'll grant you that modern academia doesn't meet the desires of consumers, but this has no bearing on whether or not the ideas are correct, or good, in themselves. IOW, you're knocking down a strawman and assuming that the market for ideas is the same as the market for good ideas. The latter of which, I just don't think is true.
So I've already got nirgraham to admit that Mises was a statist and socialist (although an admittedly incomplete one). Was he also a crank and a parasite?
Let's pile it on! See how much fun these labels are?
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."
GilesStratton:m going to ask that you provide some sort of criteria with which we can determine whether or not somebody is a parasite before you make such bold statements.
GilesStratton:Even if you think that subsidies do slow down economic development, this is long way from proving that subsidies to intellectuals cause them to support statist policies
I would argue that the first impulse it to become a worse economist and only a secondary effect would be 'to become positively statist'
GilesStratton:I'll grant you that modern academia doesn't meet the desires of consumers, but this has no bearing on whether or not the ideas are correct, or good, in themselves. IOW, you're knocking down a strawman and assuming that the market for ideas is the same as the market for good ideas. The latter of which, I just don't think is true.
Rooster: So I've already got nirgraham to admit that Mises was a statist and socialist (although an admittedly incomplete one). Was he also a crank and a parasite? Let's pile it on! See how much fun these labels are?
Don't forget Menger, Bohm-Bawerk, Kirzner and Hayek. Apparently the Austrian school is full of cranks, parasites, socialists and statists.
i'm sure you'll find a way to deal with it. If you are emotionally mature.
GilesStratton:Don't forget Menger, Bohm-Bawerk, Kirzner and Hayek. Apparently the Austrian school is full of cranks, parasites, socialists and statists.
Enough with the strawmen.
Rooster:So I've already got nirgraham to admit that Mises was a statist and socialist (although an admittedly incomplete one). Was he also a crank and a parasite?
Obviously Mises was not a crank. I don't believe he ever advocated the state over the market where he saw a role for the market.
But by Hoppe's ideas on class theory, Mises when he worked for the state, would have been a parasite, even if he was performing a role we would consider valuable. The test is not utility, but morality.
nirgrahamUK:Parasites live by the power of government intervention. by the poltical and not the economic means....
Which leaves you with the following problems. To begin with there's no way you can tell whether or not an individual and the services they render to society would be demanded on a free market and to what extent they would be demanded. So, definatively, you can't say whether or not any given state employee is a parasite. This is of course, unless you wish to make the bold claim that you've solved the problem of economic calculation in a market that is not free. On a similar note, Austrian methodology also precludes the possibility of you saying whether or not a given state employee represents a net loss to society.
Finally, you're left with the tricky implication that Mises, Menger, Bohm-Bawerk and Hayek were all parasites. Do you want to admit that?
nirgrahamUK:I would argue that the first impulse it to become a worse economist and only a secondary effect would be 'to become positively statist'
Well why don't you argue that, instead of merely informing me of what you would argue?
nirgrahamUK:you just strawmanned me. impressive.
I don't really see how it is a strawman. Although, if you believe it is I'm going to have to ask for a more thorough explanation of your views and the way in which my representation of your views contradicts this. If not, I'll merely assume that you're "arguing like a Rothbardian". Because, as far as I'm aware, when the argument concerning subsidies is applied to academia all it proves is that academia will be less likely to meet the demands of consumers, which is different from whether or not it will produce the correct theories. Unless, of course, you wish to state that the market for ideas is the market for correct ideas.
GilesStratton:. To begin with there's no way you can tell whether or not an individual and the services they render to society would be demanded on a free market and to what extent they would be demanded. So, definatively, you can't say whether or not any given state employee is a parasite.
GilesStratton:Finally, you're left with the tricky implication that Mises, Menger, Bohm-Bawerk and Hayek were all parasites. Do you want to admit that?
GilesStratton:Well why don't you argue that, instead of merely informing me of what you would argue?
well why dont you tell me to do something instead of ask me why i dont do it ?
Wouldn't this conversation be better continued in the "Does State Sponsorship Corrupt Economic Science" thread?
GilesStratton: wilderness:And I was asking, to put it another way, what "nature" (to use this natural law concept you provided) does Austrian economics show... "of the market system and government intervention."? Austrian economics can show what the results will be of a given institutional arrangement. I don't see what is so difficult to understand about this. Austrian economics can then be used by historians to determine which causal factors were in play at a given moment in time. I not once invoked natural law which is a normative ethical theory. So as far as I'm aware, you're just confused at to the original content of my post. But if this is so I'm not sure why you proceeded to challenge me in the way that you did.
1). When a person refers to an objects "nature" that is natural philosophy and science. I was merely making a side note thus why the parenthesis. Not stating you were intentionally or not trying to do that.
2). I was asking what nature. What in particular or universal is this nature you are referring to. Not to only reassert the statement, but to discuss what "nature" you mentioned.
3.) I wasn't challenging you. I was asking a question.
Juan:Of course Mises was a statist and a socialist regarding defense. What's the problem with stating facts ? Do you think Mises was god or one of his prophets ?
Not at all, in fact I'm probably more critical of Mises than many here. The point is that calling Mises a statist and a socialist makes those labels pretty useless. If someone said to you, "Oh Mises, yeah he was a statist and socialist," do you think that is a good label?
The term socialism is not commonly used to refer to a particular function being performed by government, but by widespread government control over the economy. The same with statism. It seems clear to me that the term "statist" is most commonly used by libertarians as an insult.
GilesStratton: In this topic: we redefine the word crank.
In this topic: we redefine the word crank.
:3
"The power of liberty going forward is in decentralization. Not in leaders, but in decentralized activism. In a market process." -- liberty student
Wilderness, sorry for the confusion. I was perhaps using terms loosely, but I think that's all you can accuse me of. I apologise for any confusion I've caused. I think that's all you were asking to be honest. So I'll rephrase what I original wrote and you can tell me if there's still any issues I have, in case I've misunderstood your question. My point was nothing more than that economic science can tell us how things are, not how they ought to be.
nirgrahamUK, I get the feeling you're being purposefully obtuse. Perhaps it's because you're being a pedant, perhaps it's because you're missing out and ignoring large chunks of my post. Nonetheless, I'll indulge you.
nirgrahamUK: huh? i dont need to compare with anything. if they get their income by paycheck from the government each one is a certificate of parasitism.
But this doesn't fit with the standard definition of a parasite. So whilst you may well use the term parasite in this way, it's awefully ad hoc and perhaps not very fitting. Moreover, it doesn't even fit the use of the term in the way that Hoppe and others here use it.
nirgrahamUK:sure. Though I dont know how many years Mises parasited compared to all that time he received private funding...
But this doesn't fit with your definition of the word above, unless you wish to add more to your definition of the word parasite, you can't draw anything but an arbitrary line between Mises and those who are in fact, by your standards, parasites.
nirgrahamUK:well why dont you tell me to do something instead of ask me why i dont do it ?
Because I was hoping, in the spirit of intellectual honesty, that you'd answer it upon this comment. Instead you seem to be going out of your way not to answer it. So if you wouldn't mind, get to it.
On the other hand, you could follow the example set by LS...
parasites are net tax consumers. ask lam if you are confused.
Rooster: The term socialism is not commonly used to refer to a particular function being performed by government, but by widespread government control over the economy.
The term socialism is not commonly used to refer to a particular function being performed by government, but by widespread government control over the economy.
I define socialism/fascism/mercantilism as all governments between no-government and communism. Socialism being the government expansion. Fascism being the private sector expanding into governmental monopoly ability. Mercantilism being socialism and fascism together. Mercantilism is the composite concept for socialism and fascism happening in tandem. That's what I've gathered from this forum and reading some literature on this.
Seriously, I think this thread has gone off the cliff like so many Bond cars that it makes me wonder if folks are willing to consider that maybe there is a bit of crankness in economics and the host of the social sciences. Hell, my intro to psychology teacher (a graduate student that was focusing on decision making in psychology) thought that many parts of psychology was outright pseudoscience. And he had no problems explaining why. For him it was a matter that there was an attempt to mimick the natural sciences either in the methods of experimentation and/or classification. Oddly, this is an old argument that's been often repeated independently by various social scientists (Rothbard and Szasz are the only two of note that I can think of right now). So, Giles, don't go and bitch when even the folks with the PhDs in the field point it out. And don't bitch ever more when someone who isn't "credentialed" happens to repeat the same thing. Maybe there's truth to their words, or maybe not, but it's not going to go away with Jedi handwaving and bitching, that's for sure.
GilesStratton: Wilderness, sorry for the confusion. I was perhaps using terms loosely, but I think that's all you can accuse me of. I apologise for any confusion I've caused. I think that's all you were asking to be honest. So I'll rephrase what I original wrote and you can tell me if there's still any issues I have, in case I've misunderstood your question. My point was nothing more than that economic science can tell us how things are, not how they ought to be.
Yes. I figured you were stating that economic science can tell us how things are, not ought. I thought maybe you knew, since you brought it up, but maybe you were only generalizing - but I thought maybe you knew the answer to this and I quote you, "Austrian economics can show the nature of the market system and government intervention..." and I was wondering what that "nature" is. What is that relationship (nature) between the market system and government intervention that Austrian economics shows.
if you don't particularly know and were making a general statement, no big deal, I thought that was a curious statement and it would be interesting to know that "nature".
nirgrahamUK: parasites are net tax consumers. ask lam if you are confused.
Ok, but then my other criticism applies, you can't tell me who is a net tax consumer because you can't tell me which money would or would have not gone to them in a free market. Unless you too suffer from The Fatal Conceit. Of course, that definition is questionable, but I'll go with this line of thought for now.
wilderness:I thought maybe you knew, since you brought it up, but maybe you were only generalizing - but I thought maybe you knew the answer to this and I quote you, "Austrian economics can show the nature of the market system and government intervention..." and I was wondering what that "nature" is. What is that relationship (nature) between the market system and government intervention that Austrian economics shows.
Ah, OK, I understand what you mean now. Do you think you could clarify your statement, I'm still not sure what you mean. I think you're asking whether or not I could elucidate what the effects of the government are on the free market and how the free market would function without the state. In which case I'm going to have to direct you to the writings of the Austrians whose books are available for free on this site and perhaps some writings of other Austrians. If that's not what you're asking, mind clarifying?
Nitpicking here:
wilderness:I define socialism/fascism/mercantilism as all governments between no-government and communism.
Its ironic, in the mythical world of communism, there is no state.
wilderness:Socialism being the government expansion.
Shall we stick with the traditional definition of socialism being the nationalization, and subsequent government control of a certain industry?
wilderness: Mercantilism being socialism and fascism together. Mercantilism is the composite concept for socialism and fascism happening in tandem.
In my humble opinion, mercantilism is a very specific set of economic policies; for instance, thebasic policy of mercantilism is that that a government pursue a policy of reducing imports, increasing exports, and ensuring that there is a net trade surplus. However, this policy, which is the ethos of mercantilism, does not fit into your blend-definition of mercantilism since it need not involve either government expansion, nor the government granting any monopolies, though, in practice, it almost always does. This leads me to the opinion that mercantilism is its own different animal that needs to be defined not definining it as a mix of fascism, and socialism, but as its own system defined by the general ethos above.
Abstract liberty, like other mere abstractions, is not to be found.
- Edmund Burke
GilesStratton: wilderness:I thought maybe you knew, since you brought it up, but maybe you were only generalizing - but I thought maybe you knew the answer to this and I quote you, "Austrian economics can show the nature of the market system and government intervention..." and I was wondering what that "nature" is. What is that relationship (nature) between the market system and government intervention that Austrian economics shows. Ah, OK, I understand what you mean now. Do you think you could clarify your statement, I'm still not sure what you mean.
Ah, OK, I understand what you mean now. Do you think you could clarify your statement, I'm still not sure what you mean.
Can both both laugh at what you said here in good humor...lol "I understand... not sure what you mean."...lol Ok, I'll try again.
GilesStratton: I think you're asking whether or not I could elucidate what the effects of the government are on the free market and how the free market would function without the state.
I think you're asking whether or not I could elucidate what the effects of the government are on the free market and how the free market would function without the state.
If that's what Austrian economics can "show", which I believe is what you stated.
GilesStratton: In which case I'm going to have to direct you to the writings of the Austrians whose books are available for free on this site and perhaps some writings of other Austrians. If that's not what you're asking, mind clarifying?
In which case I'm going to have to direct you to the writings of the Austrians whose books are available for free on this site and perhaps some writings of other Austrians. If that's not what you're asking, mind clarifying?
Yes. That's what I'm asking.
laminustacitus: Nitpicking here: wilderness:I define socialism/fascism/mercantilism as all governments between no-government and communism. Its ironic, in the mythical world of communism, there is no state.
I guess in a way I see what you mean except in communism there is still a monopoly whereas the other end of the spectrum (no-government) doesn't have a monopoly and if it does it therefore a government.
laminustacitus: wilderness:Socialism being the government expansion. Shall we stick with the traditional definition of socialism being the nationalization, and subsequent government control of a certain industry?
I agree with what you said here and that's why I was saying, but not in so many words.
laminustacitus: wilderness: Mercantilism being socialism and fascism together. Mercantilism is the composite concept for socialism and fascism happening in tandem. In my humble opinion, mercantilism is a very specific set of economic policies; for instance, thebasic policy of mercantilism is that that a government pursue a policy of reducing imports, increasing exports, and ensuring that there is a net trade surplus. However, this policy, which is the ethos of mercantilism, does not fit into your blend-definition of mercantilism since it need not involve either government expansion, nor the government granting any monopolies, though, in practice, it almost always does. This leads me to the opinion that mercantilism is its own different animal that needs to be defined not definining it as a mix of fascism, and socialism, but as its own system defined by the general ethos above.
I was thinking of this article by David Osterfield. Here's a quote:
"Arid this, in turn, means that the Marxist cannot distinguish between what is commonly referred to as capitalism, or a system of free trade, and mercantilism, or a system in which the operation of the market is impeded by extensive government restrictions for the benefit of the ruling group. It is important to realize that it is not simply that the Marxist does not distinguish between capitalism and mercantilism. It is that the Marxist paradigm quite literally renders him incapable of making such a distinction."
"In contrast, the strength of the liberal paradigm lies in precisely its ability to provide an analytical distinction between voluntarism and power, market, and government. This distinction has been at the center of liberal thought from its very inception. Adam Smith, for example, wrote his massive Wealth of Nations specifically to refute the doctrine of mercantilism. Smith argues that under mercantilism monopolistic privileges were granted to a few favored firms, permitting them to sell at exorbitant prices, while tariffs were enacted to keep out foreign competitors. But if a nation were to eliminate imports it would need to have its own exclusive colonies in order to obtain raw materials. The power of the state, of course, was ideally suited to carve out and police the resulting colonial system. Smith charged that the mercantilist system not only hurt those in the colonies but the workers in the mother country as well. Its only beneficiaries, he says, were "the rich and powerful."" There's more, of course, in the article. I thought the article was short and sweet.
"In contrast, the strength of the liberal paradigm lies in precisely its ability to provide an analytical distinction between voluntarism and power, market, and government. This distinction has been at the center of liberal thought from its very inception. Adam Smith, for example, wrote his massive Wealth of Nations specifically to refute the doctrine of mercantilism. Smith argues that under mercantilism monopolistic privileges were granted to a few favored firms, permitting them to sell at exorbitant prices, while tariffs were enacted to keep out foreign competitors. But if a nation were to eliminate imports it would need to have its own exclusive colonies in order to obtain raw materials. The power of the state, of course, was ideally suited to carve out and police the resulting colonial system. Smith charged that the mercantilist system not only hurt those in the colonies but the workers in the mother country as well. Its only beneficiaries, he says, were "the rich and powerful.""
There's more, of course, in the article. I thought the article was short and sweet.
wilderness: Rooster: The term socialism is not commonly used to refer to a particular function being performed by government, but by widespread government control over the economy. I define socialism/fascism/mercantilism as all governments between no-government and communism. Socialism being the government expansion. Fascism being the private sector expanding into governmental monopoly ability. Mercantilism being socialism and fascism together. Mercantilism is the composite concept for socialism and fascism happening in tandem. That's what I've gathered from this forum and reading some literature on this.
These are definitely not commonly accepted definitions.
GilesStratton:Ok, but then my other criticism applies, you can't tell me who is a net tax consumer because you can't tell me which money would or would have not gone to them in a free market. Unless you too suffer from The Fatal Conceit. Of course, that definition is questionable, but I'll go with this line of thought for now.
Your right, we couldn't say for certain where the money would have gone in a free market. But that still does not change the fact that net tax consumers are parasites. Whether or not they would receive the same amount of money in a free market seems irrelevant (even though we both know it is very unlikely they would). They do not earn their income through voluntary transactions, and live parasitically off the net tax payers. So they are parasites.
Although it seems like it could sometimes be difficult to tell who is and who is not a net tax consumer. It would be very difficult to tell in some cases. Also, what about the unemployed 16 year old kid who drives on taxpayer financed roads? He pays no taxes, and he drives on roads that were payed for with tax dollars. He uses many other public services, even though he has never paid any taxes. Would he qualify as a net tax consumer? If so, I could say that the vast majority of babies and children are "parasites". Or would how much the parents pay in taxes somehow determine whether or not their children are net tax consumers?
On A side note, even if some net tax consumers would earn the same income in a free market, the money they earn could very well come from completely different people than those who are currently paying the net tax consumers wages. If so, then it definitely could not be said that they were never parasites, since they did live parasitically off unwilling taxpayers.
Rooster: wilderness: Rooster: The term socialism is not commonly used to refer to a particular function being performed by government, but by widespread government control over the economy. I define socialism/fascism/mercantilism as all governments between no-government and communism. Socialism being the government expansion. Fascism being the private sector expanding into governmental monopoly ability. Mercantilism being socialism and fascism together. Mercantilism is the composite concept for socialism and fascism happening in tandem. That's what I've gathered from this forum and reading some literature on this. These are definitely not commonly accepted definitions.
Well I outlined an educated view above this post of yours that is undoubtedly debatable. Yet to rely upon "common" as a source of knowledge isn't an attractive approach: Obama was a commonly voted in President, meaning, it was more common for people to vote Obama than McCain.
And look at the confusion you stated above in this post. You stated "...socialism is not commonly used to refer to... performed by government, but... government control..."
Isn't government control performed by the government?
Eric:Your right, we couldn't say for certain where the money would have gone in a free market. But that still does not change the fact that net tax consumers are parasites. Whether or not they would receive the same amount of money in a free market seems irrelevant (even though we both know it is very unlikely they would). They do not earn their income through voluntary transactions, and live parasitically off the net tax payers. So they are parasites.
Good response. Someone here is trying to play epistemological games to avoid direct criticism.
Eric:On A side note, even if some net tax consumers would earn the same income in a free market, the money they earn could very well come from completely different people than those who are currently paying the net tax consumers wages. If so, then it definitely could not be said that they were never parasites, since they did live parasitically off unwilling taxpayers.
I think you lost the plot here. I can't understand this no matter how many times I read it.
Rooster:These are definitely not commonly accepted definitions.
Ah semantics.
The refuge of a scoundrel.
Eric, thanks for your response.
Running with this line of thought, I'd like you to consider the following. If it is true that those who earn money in the current market do so in a way that differs from the way they would have earned money in a free market, I think you're going to have a very difficult time proving that anybody isn't, to some extent, a parasite. This is true whether or not they happen to work for the state or not, the fact is that the current state of government intervention significantly changes the distribution of resources within the economy. If you look at the financial sector you'll see that there exist a vast number of lines of work that simply wouldn't exist had the government not monopolized fiat currency. I'm not talking about public sector employees here but people who occupy jobs that exist because of the demand for them due to the existence of fiat money. So you're argument is essentially that everybody is a parasite to some extent, we just can't know who and there's no possible way that we can do, unless somebody solves the socialist calculation problem. I find this to be a very troubling implication that takes the force out your position entirely.
I don't think it's clear that it's unlikely that state employees would not be able to make the same amount of money in a free market. What you have to understand is that academics are merely filling places in a job that is already monopolized by the state. It's by no means self evident that demand for the service provided by intellectuals would not be demanded on a free market. I think you speculate on this issue, and that's about it.
On a more fundamental level I'm not so sure that you can define a parasite as one who is a net tex consumer. It certainly flies in the face of Misesian subjectivism, since I don't regard intellectuals are being parasites. At the very least, I suspect to see some sort of support for this definition.
liberty student:Good response. Someone here is trying to play epistemological games to avoid direct criticism
Of course, others are simply ignoring their critics. I'll leave it to you to decide which is more dishonest.
wilderness: Well I outlined an educated view above this post of yours that is undoubtedly debatable. Yet to rely upon "common" as a source of knowledge isn't an attractive approach: Obama was a commonly voted in President, meaning, it was more common for people to vote Obama than McCain. And look at the confusion you stated above in this post. You stated "...socialism is not commonly used to refer to... performed by government, but... government control..." Isn't government control performed by the government?
liberty student: Rooster:These are definitely not commonly accepted definitions. Ah semantics. The refuge of a scoundrel.
I can see this is going nowhere. If you want to make up your own definitions, then go ahead. You can defy the masses!
Rooster:I can see this is going nowhere
I'm going to redefine "can see" to "am", "this" to "a" and "is going nowhere" to "statist hack". So now you've admitted that you're a statist hack you'd best not deny it or you'll most certainly be playing semantic games.
liberty student:I think you lost the plot here. I can't understand this no matter how many times I read it.
Yea, let me rephrase that....But it is basically unrelated to the rest of my post. It was something that just popped into my head while I was typing.
Lets say a public employee (lets say a professor) is earning 70,000 dollars a year. Then, for one reason or another, he is suddenly forced to compete in the market. So now he can no longer live off the taxpayers. But he is able to keep his job as a professor, and still earn 70,000 dollars a year. So he worked the same job, and earned the same amount when he lived off taxpayers, and when he didn't.
However, the people who were paying his wages when he was a net tax consumer are different people than those who were paying for his services when he was competing in the free market. So even if he could keep the same job and earn the same amount in the free market, he would still be a "parasite" because the people who are paying for his services are not the same people as those who would voluntarily pay for them in a free market.
I hope that was more clear. If not....Oh well, it wasn't really an important point anyways.
Rooster:I can see this is going nowhere. If you want to make up your own definitions, then go ahead. You can defy the masses!
Why should anyone constrain themselves to what the masses think?
The definition game in debate gets old. Whatever the popular definitions may or may not be, as long as both parties in the debate understand the terms used, and in what context, it is irrelevant what 300 million Americans or 6 billion global citizens think those terms mean.
Making appeals to common definitions is just a cowardly way of avoiding substantive debate. Either you understand Wilderness' use of those terms, or you do not. If you do not, and wish to argue in good faith, you can ask for clarification. But to ask Wilderness to not only be accountable to your expectations of the terms, but millions of people, for whom he has no capacity to poll, is just a waste of all of our time.
Abandon the argumentum ad populum definition game if you are serious about going somewhere.
liberty student: Rooster:I can see this is going nowhere. If you want to make up your own definitions, then go ahead. You can defy the masses! Why should anyone constrain themselves to what the masses think? The definition game in debate gets old. Whatever the popular definitions may or may not be, as long as both parties in the debate understand the terms used, and in what context, it is irrelevant what 300 million Americans or 6 billion global citizens think those terms mean. Making appeals to common definitions is just a cowardly way of avoiding substantive debate. Either you understand Wilderness' use of those terms, or you do not. If you do not, and wish to argue in good faith, you can ask for clarification. But to ask Wilderness to not only be accountable to your expectations of the terms, but millions of people, for whom he has no capacity to poll, is just a waste of all of our time. Abandon the argumentum ad populum definition game if you are serious about going somewhere.
We were talking about definitions, it's not like I am hiding in semantics and popular opinion. As I said use whatever definitions you want, just as long as you concede that Mises should now be referred to as a statist, socialist, crank, and parasite. My point was that these are not useful labels when used in this way.
Eric: Lets say a public employee (lets say a professor) is earning 70,000 dollars a year. Then, for one reason or another, he is suddenly forced to compete in the market. So now he can no longer live off the taxpayers. But he is able to keep his job as a professor, and still earn 70,000 dollars a year. So he worked the same job, and earned the same amount when he lived off taxpayers, and when he didn't. However, the people who were paying his wages when he was a net tax consumer are different people than those who were paying for his services when he was competing in the free market. So even if he could keep the same job and earn the same amount in the free market, he would still be a "parasite" because the people who are paying for his services are not the same people as those who would voluntarily pay for them in a free market.
Right, I get it now. Exactly. Some will argue we cannot know, but that is nonsense. We don't have to prove negatives to make a strong argument.
Hoppe's take, is that even if you do not work for the state proper, say you bid for military contracts and win the privilege to produce tanks or fighter planes, then you are still a parasite because the state is an illegitimate monopoly customer paying for your services and production with loot taken by force from others.
And the notion that government employees and contractors pay their share in taxes is also false, as they are merely rebating a portion of their ill gotten income back to the state, in a populist game of obfuscation.