General

Re: Ayn Rand's Marginalia

Andrew Cain — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 22:15:16 GMT

Esuric:
But my point was that Mises was not some radical subjectivist who denied any and all absolute truth/natural law.

Absolutely. I agree with that.

Re: Ayn Rand's Marginalia

Esuric — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 06:35:29 GMT

Laughing Man:
Well you were saying 'laws of nature' which is kind of ambiguous especially in economic terms.

Yeah, I wasn't really being clear. I was really talking about the laws of value (ends/means, time preference). But my point was that Mises was not some radical subjectivist who denied any and all absolute truth/natural law.

Re: Ayn Rand's Marginalia

Andrew Cain — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 05:54:46 GMT

Esuric:
but desired ends require different means in different cultures (ultimately trying to obtain satisfaction by eliminating uneasiness/inadequacies).

Not necessarily. Means can be similar from place to place. I don't think similar goals require similar means but I think I am understanding what you are trying to say now.

Esuric:
I don't think this contradicts Mises at all, he states, "The value of the monetary unit is always and everywhere the same, but the desires of men are not always and everywhere the same"

Well you were saying 'laws of nature' which is kind of ambiguous especially in economic terms.

Re: Ayn Rand's Marginalia

Justin Spahr-Summers — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 05:43:37 GMT

Adam Knott:
JSS:

I believe that both you and Miss Rand have mis-read the passage from Mises.

Thank you for your long and detailed response. I didn't think that Mises was defining his concept of human action in the excerpt I quoted, but it did seem like he was implying that perfect calm/security would be a Good Thing. Laughing Man made a good point, though, about Mises' value beliefs.

I'll try to transcribe more of Rand's comments at some point later this week.

Re: Ayn Rand's Marginalia

Esuric — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 05:35:53 GMT

Laughing Man:
Ah, it sounds like you're saying Mises was exactly what he wanted to combat: A polylogicist. The laws of logic are uniform throughout time. Mises believed in normative subjective value, which means that goals cannot be questioned, merely means. However, this conflicts with Mises himself because Mises obviously postulated that common man wants prosperity and liberty.

Well, I'm saying that the laws of value are always and everywhere the same, but desired ends require different means in different cultures (ultimately trying to obtain satisfaction by eliminating uneasiness/inadequacies). For example, the desired end may be prestige, but prestige in ancient Rome is not the same as prestige in ancient Nepal, and as such, there will be different means employed for that very same end.

I don't think this contradicts Mises at all, he states, "The value of the monetary unit is always and everywhere the same, but the desires of men are not always and everywhere the same" [Something like that; I lost my notes for The Theory of Money and Credit ><]. He's attacking the belief that the same monetary unit's purchasing power varies regionally; like when people say that the "dollar is weaker in NYC."

Re: Ayn Rand's Marginalia

Andrew Cain — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 05:16:43 GMT

Esuric:
but rather, there are certain laws of human nature, which manifest themselves in different ways due to the heterogeneity of our experiences

Ah, it sounds like you're saying Mises was exactly what he wanted to combat: A polylogicist. The laws of logic are uniform throughout time. Mises believed in normative subjective value, which means that goals cannot be questioned, merely means. However, this conflicts with Mises himself because Mises obviously postulated that common man wants prosperity and liberty.

Re: Ayn Rand's Marginalia

Esuric — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 04:54:36 GMT

liberty student:

Rand was very subjective herself. But since she called herself objective...

It's like the odd Objectivist we get here who argues against anarchy. They simply cannot explain how law can be objective, except that it must. Because.

Rand seems to be begging the question, and not answering it. Okay, ambition drives human action, but what is ambition, and why do we have it? Furthermore, it seems that she's completely missing Mises' point: it's not that Mises is a deconstructionist, or a postmodernist, who believes that everything is subjective; but rather, there are certain laws of human nature, which manifest themselves in different ways due to the heterogeneity of our experiences. 'Society' is not always and everywhere the same.

Re: Ayn Rand's Marginalia

liberty student — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 01:44:19 GMT

Esuric:

Rand saw that the word subjective was used a lot by Mises, and since she's an 'objectivist,' she tried to attack his position without really understanding it.

Rand was very subjective herself. But since she called herself objective...

It's like the odd Objectivist we get here who argues against anarchy. They simply cannot explain how law can be objective, except that it must. Because.

Re: Ayn Rand's Marginalia

Esuric — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 22:01:18 GMT

Rand saw that the word subjective was used a lot by Mises, and since she's an 'objectivist,' she tried to attack his position without really understanding it.

Re: Ayn Rand's Marginalia

Adam Knott — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 21:43:10 GMT

JSS:

I believe that both you and Miss Rand have mis-read the passage from Mises.

When he writes above: "...these illusory schemes for establishment of an unrealizable realm of calm removed from the inescapable limitations of human action and providing eternal security...."

He is referring to the government's use of public debt and the attempts to create money with stable purchasing power which try to overcome the laws of the market (i.e., the attempt by governments to try to overcome the praxeological laws of economics). He is saying that the government, through public borrowing and debt schemes, and through attempts to stabilize the currency, cannot provide lasting calm, happiness, security, etc., for society.

He is saying that these schemes are illusory and unrealizeable... (the schemes governments are trying to implement)

Then, you quote this passage as if it were an idealization of human action on the part of Mises and other economists. You imply that Mises puts forth this statement as his concept of human action:

"Well, it seems like Mises (and, indeed, just about any economist) idealizes the world of perfect security. .....their reasoning is that everyone aims for perfect security---"an unrealizable realm of calm removed from the inescapable limitations of human action."

You have totally misread and misunderstood Mises.

He is criticizing the idea of using governmental means in an attempt to circumvent economic laws, and you are interpreting his critique of the attempt to use government to circumvent economic laws as Mises's concept of action.

That is simply a terrible misread.

Then you continue:

"In the quoted passage, however, he asserts that there is no such thing as the "eternal, absolute, and unchanging" when it comes to humanity."

This again is a blatant misreading and misrepresentation of what Mises is asserting. He writes: "There is no such things as eternal, absolute, and unchanging values. The search for a standard of such values is vain."

Mises doesn't refer to the collective concept of "humanity" as you write.

Also, as the title of the chapter indicates (The Root of the Stabilization Idea), Mises is saying the idea that money has a rigid purchasing power, or that government can "stabilize" the purchasing power of money, is faulty. He is saying that it is vain to try to find a standard of eternal and rigid value as is implied in the idea of a currency with stable purchasing power.

So again, a misreading of what Mises is saying.

Rand seems to make the same mistake. In the context of critiquing Mises's quote, she writes:

"...then the concept of man as being constantly seeking the Nirvana of stagnation ....What Mises blanks out totally in his assumption of a happy Nirvana-seeker is...."

Rand is saying that Mises is putting forth the concept of man as seeking "the Nirvana of stagnation" and of man as "a happy Nirvana-seeker."

If we look at the passage that Rand is referring to, Mises has written: "...establishment of an unrealizable realm of calm removed from the inescapable limitations of human action and providing eternal security...."

What Mises is saying is that the government is attempting to do something that cannot be done (i.e., provide a realm of calm removed from the inescapable limitations of human action and provide eternal security....)

Rand is saying: What a contradictory concept of human action Mises has !!

Rand, like you, is taking Mises's critique of government intervention in monetary affairs and implying that it constitutes his theory or concept of human action. You are both misreading the passage.

Then she continues: "On what grounds would we assume....that man, by nature, is set against reality?"

By which she seems to mean that man would be "set against reality" if he is a being that tries to reach an unrealizable state of Nirvana. But Mises is referring to the government's plans to overcome the laws of the market, and create a realm that is not subject to the laws of the market, as he writes: "people yearning for stable income not dependent on the productive processes of men."

He is criticizing such people as aiming in vain for a state of affairs that cannot be attained.

Rand is mistakenly reading this as part of Mises's conception of individual action, as if Mises held the idea that all action is directed toward:

"an unrealizable realm of calm removed from the inescapable limitations of human action and providing eternal security...."

That is not Mise's theory of action. Rand appears to be misreading and misunderstanding Mises.

Here is Mises's concept of human action:

"Man's aim is to substitute what he considers a better state of affairs for a less satisfactory one. He strives for the substitution of a more satisfactory state of affairs in place of a less satisfactory state of affairs. And in the satisfaction of this desire, he becomes happier than he was before."

"The theoretical science of human action presupposes only one thing---that there is action, i.e., the conscious striving of individuals to remove uneasiness and to substitute a more satisfactory state of affairs for one that is less satisfactory."

(The Free Market and its Enemies, p.14)

Re: Ayn Rand's Marginalia

nirgrahamUK — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 20:51:56 GMT

Justin Spahr-Summers:
I disagree. The philosophy underlying economic conclusions is just as important as the conclusions themselves.

.... ok, another non-sequitur. 'you disagree', with what? if you dont think what she said is a non-sequitur, say why...

for my part, it simply does not follow from "humanity is always in a state of flux." that "this world of security can hardly be the ideal driving men to action", what is the warrant? where is the argument? its just a non-sequitur.

Justin Spahr-Summers:
The philosophy underlying economic conclusions is just as important as the conclusions themselves.

I never impugned philosophy; and i understand the importance of praxeology, even as Rand does not understand praxeology.

Justin Spahr-Summers:
Yes, exactly

if i am exactly right on this point then Rand is exactly wrong on it.

Re: Ayn Rand's Marginalia

Justin Spahr-Summers — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 20:33:04 GMT

nirgrahamUK:
Justin Spahr-Summers:
Rand points out that this world of security can hardly be the ideal driving men to action, assuming that humanity is always in a state of flux.

this is a complete non-sequitur.

I disagree. The philosophy underlying economic conclusions is just as important as the conclusions themselves.

nirgrahamUK:
humanity is in a state of flux, ergo..... what exactly?

maybe if you are Rand: because a man is in a 'state of flux' (whatever that means), therefore, lessoning his uneasiness is not what drives him to action?

Yes, exactly. Again, like I said, there are no economic consequences of this perspective, but it's important philosophically (and praxeology does incorporate some philosophy, regardless of Mises' intentions).

Re: Ayn Rand's Marginalia

nirgrahamUK — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 19:55:12 GMT

Justin Spahr-Summers:
Rand points out that this world of security can hardly be the ideal driving men to action, assuming that humanity is always in a state of flux.

this is a complete non-sequitur.

humanity is in a state of flux, ergo..... what exactly?

maybe if you are Rand: because a man is in a 'state of flux' (whatever that means), therefore, lessoning his uneasiness is not what drives him to action?

good grief.

Re: Ayn Rand's Marginalia

Justin Spahr-Summers — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 19:49:50 GMT

nirgrahamUK:
first off what does she mean by 'set against reality' i think these are weasal words set to make you think Ayn Rand is correct and Mises is wrong.

asserting that 'mans proper state' should be a state of happiness, is a non-sequitur. Mises never says what the proper state of man is. Mises just recognises what is it about man that prompts him to act. (unease).

Well, it seems like Mises (and, indeed, just about any economist) idealizes the world of perfect security. Not in the sense that everyone should or will be all-contented, but their reasoning is that everyone aims for perfect security—"an unrealizable realm of calm removed from the inescapable limitations of human action." Naturally, Mises notes that this is an impossible ideal, but his praxeological axioms seem to be based on a drive toward this world of calm.

In the quoted passage, however, he asserts that there is no such thing as the "eternal, absolute, and unchanging" when it comes to humanity. Rand points out that this world of security can hardly be the ideal driving men to action, assuming that humanity is always in a state of flux. In other words, if no human values are static, perhaps our natural state is one of action, and that to refrain from action creates uneasiness.

This has no economic consequences, because the conclusions drawn from the axiom are still correct, but it challenges the philosophical implications of the axiom. Such is also the case with most of the rest of her notes on Mises.

Re: Ayn Rand's Marginalia

nirgrahamUK — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 13:49:15 GMT

Justin Spahr-Summers:
Personally, I think that what she's saying makes perfect sense and does kind of punch a hole in that part of Mises' praxeological basis.

i think what she says is wrong....

first off what does she mean by 'set against reality' i think these are weasal words set to make you think Ayn Rand is correct and Mises is wrong.

asserting that 'mans proper state' should be a state of happiness, is a non-sequitur. Mises never says what the proper state of man is. Mises just recognises what is it about man that prompts him to act. (unease).

On 'ambition' recognise that when anyone does anything motivated by their 'ambition' this is just another way of saying that they act so as to remove felt unease.

I'm not sure what lefts of Ayn Rands' criticism, but if you would like to have a go restating it after having taken on board my criticisms, i would love to give your creation a second look.