Economics Questions

Re: Economics vs. Crank Studies

McDuffie — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 12:27:01 GMT

Knight_of_BAAWA:

GilesStratton:
No, the point is that if you wish to assert something, namely that state employees are parasites, the burden of proof is on you.
If you assert something which has been proven over and over, asking for more proof is simply a stalling tactic of the intellectually dishonest.

I don't want to sound like an idiot, but has It been proven that state employees are parasites? And if not, does it even have to be? Does someone have to prove that a blue car is blue? It seems to me that the status of state employees as parasites is a self-evident truth.

Re: Economics vs. Crank Studies

Knight_of_BAAWA — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 01:22:45 GMT

GilesStratton:
No, the point is that if you wish to assert something, namely that state employees are parasites, the burden of proof is on you.

If you assert something which has been proven over and over, asking for more proof is simply a stalling tactic of the intellectually dishonest.

Re: Economics vs. Crank Studies

wilderness — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 21:34:40 GMT

GilesStratton:

wilderness:
Unless choices were available. If a handicapped person is given the choice to be supplied with expenses by a person(s) who will voluntarily give them such supplies and the handicapped person refused to choose voluntary hand outs and willingly wanted to take involuntary hand outs (remain a net tax consumer), then yes the handicapped person is a parasite.

But Austrians consistently point out that government crowds out private charity and other institutions that would provide charity. In which case, the point still stands. You can't just cherrypick like that you know?

The government does crowd out voluntary, free market institutions. I was pointing out if the handicapped person had a choice, meaning, if the choice came to his or her lap will he or she pick between one or the other - choice.

GilesStratton:

wilderness:
So the question has been asked Giles: Do you choose to be a parasite?

My apologies, but I'm going to have to decline the opportunity to answer a loaded question.

I'll put it this way. To choose and be a parasite when all the same tools to work or be educated came to light in the free market, civil society which would you choose? It's a hypothetical question cause not all of what can be accessed in a government institution is available in a free market, civil society, but if it were what would you choose? If the tools slowly came within in your reach, one by one, in which the ability for a free market route to finally attain what you are looking for, realistically speaking, which would you choose?

Re: Economics vs. Crank Studies

nirgrahamUK — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 21:33:44 GMT

GilesStratton:
bite the bullet and call handicapped people harmed by minimum wage "parasites".

maybe its not their fault that they are parasites, maybe they have no options but to be parasitic to maintain some quality of life, but the question of fault or blame is another debate....

Re: Economics vs. Crank Studies

hayekianxyz — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 20:12:06 GMT

wilderness:
Unless choices were available. If a handicapped person is given the choice to be supplied with expenses by a person(s) who will voluntarily give them such supplies and the handicapped person refused to choose voluntary hand outs and willingly wanted to take involuntary hand outs (remain a net tax consumer), then yes the handicapped person is a parasite.

But Austrians consistently point out that government crowds out private charity and other institutions that would provide charity. In which case, the point still stands. You can't just cherrypick like that you know?

wilderness:
So the question has been asked Giles: Do you choose to be a parasite?

My apologies, but I'm going to have to decline the opportunity to answer a loaded question.

Re: Economics vs. Crank Studies

wilderness — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 19:55:49 GMT

GilesStratton:

Right, but in which case you're not claiming any sort of scientific grounds for your use of the word "parasite" as Hoppe and his followers on these boards do. Rather, you're just using it loosely as a pejorative. I have no issue with this. But as you said, any attempt to provide scientific backing for the use of the word leads to situations in which the proponent must go ahead, bite the bullet and call handicapped people harmed by minimum wage "parasites".

Unless choices were available. If a handicapped person is given the choice to be supplied with expenses by a person(s) who will voluntarily give them such supplies and the handicapped person refused to choose voluntary hand outs and willingly wanted to take involuntary hand outs (remain a net tax consumer), then yes the handicapped person is a parasite.

So the question has been asked Giles: Do you choose to be a parasite?

Re: Economics vs. Crank Studies

hayekianxyz — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 19:46:41 GMT

Eric:

GilesStratton:
But does calling such people parasites make much sense?

Well I am probably not the best person to ask. But if they live parasitically off other people, then why not? Personally, I ususally just call politicians parasites as an insult. Maybe I wouldn't say all net tax consumers are "parasites". For example, I wouldn't want to call an unemployed handicapped man a parasite because he pays no taxes. Even though he only reason he cannot find a job is due to minimum wage laws.

Right, but in which case you're not claiming any sort of scientific grounds for your use of the word "parasite" as Hoppe and his followers on these boards do. Rather, you're just using it loosely as a pejorative. I have no issue with this. But as you said, any attempt to provide scientific backing for the use of the word leads to situations in which the proponent must go ahead, bite the bullet and call handicapped people harmed by minimum wage "parasites".

Re: Economics vs. Crank Studies

Eric — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 19:44:05 GMT

GilesStratton:
But does calling such people parasites make much sense?

Well I am probably not the best person to ask. But if they live parasitically off other people, then why not? Personally, I ususally just call politicians parasites as an insult. Maybe I wouldn't say all net tax consumers are "parasites". For example, I wouldn't want to call an unemployed handicapped man a parasite because he pays no taxes. Even though he only reason he cannot find a job is due to minimum wage laws.

Re: Economics vs. Crank Studies

hayekianxyz — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 19:44:02 GMT

liberty student:

GilesStratton:
I was pointing out that it's possible for one to be a net tax consumer whilst suffering net losses as a result of state intervention in the economy. That's all.

This is false.

Care to prove it?

Re: Economics vs. Crank Studies

liberty student — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 19:42:19 GMT

GilesStratton:
I was pointing out that it's possible for one to be a net tax consumer whilst suffering net losses as a result of state intervention in the economy. That's all.

This is false.

Re: Economics vs. Crank Studies

Juan — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 19:38:45 GMT

It's not 'austrian' class analysis, it's one of the basic tenets of liberalism.

Re: Economics vs. Crank Studies

Eric — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 19:35:25 GMT

liberty student:

Austrian class analysis basically holds that the net tax consumers (parasites) feed on the net tax producers (hosts). That any delineation based on race, breeding, aggregate wealth, social status, isn't valid (ala marxian class analysis popular with left libertarians and mutualists) as an actual accounting of who feeds on who involuntarily in a society.

In an Austrian class analysis, the poor can be parasites (net consumers) and not just the rich. Because a poor man, who is a thief, is clealy a larger villain to libertarians than a rich man who conducts his business voluntarily and honestly.

I'm just wondering, does Austrian class analysis attempt to explain how we can tell who is and who is not a net tax consumer? In some cases it may be easy to tell (politicians). But in others, it could be near impossible.

Re: Economics vs. Crank Studies

hayekianxyz — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 19:33:24 GMT

Eric:

GilesStratton:
I was pointing out that it's possible for one to be a net tax consumer whilst suffering net losses as a result of state intervention in the economy. That's all.

Oh. Well yes, that is certainly possible.

But does calling such people parasites make much sense?

Re: Economics vs. Crank Studies

Eric — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 19:32:03 GMT

GilesStratton:
I was pointing out that it's possible for one to be a net tax consumer whilst suffering net losses as a result of state intervention in the economy. That's all.

Oh. Well yes, that is certainly possible.

Re: Economics vs. Crank Studies

hayekianxyz — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 19:27:53 GMT

Eric:
What makes you say they suffer a net loss as a result of the state?

I was pointing out that it's possible for one to be a net tax consumer whilst suffering net losses as a result of state intervention in the economy. That's all.