Economics Questions

Re: Human action help with Grayson Lilburne

Consultant — Thu, 05 Aug 2010 17:22:41 GMT

Anarcho-communism is all about property in the sense that they (in theory at least) should allow other people like ancaps to live in private property focused communities.

Most of them don't think anyone will want to live in ancap though, and some of them get violent when you tell them you do. But in theory, anarcho-communism is the voluntary and mutual agreement to share property.

Re: Human action help with Grayson Lilburne

fakename — Wed, 04 Aug 2010 22:09:04 GMT

Sorry I was just trying to figure out the definition then, of capitalism because (although I thought I knew it) it appears that I really don't know it and understanding that definition would really help in understanding HA.

(why I brought up AnCom was to figure out its definition inorder to figure out capitalism's definition -a very roundabout but nevertheless possible route).

Re: Human action help with Grayson Lilburne

Daniel James Sanchez — Wed, 04 Aug 2010 21:08:38 GMT

What does anarcho-communism have to do with Human Action?! I'd still like to help anyone who has questions about the ideas in the text itself. Can we please stay on topic?

Re: Human action help with Grayson Lilburne

fakename — Wed, 04 Aug 2010 21:00:07 GMT

So now I'm just getting more and more confused, you say that anarcho-capitalism is all about private property. So that must mean that anarcho-communism cannot exist under it?

Re: Human action help with Grayson Lilburne

Consultant — Wed, 04 Aug 2010 07:30:54 GMT

Anarcho-communists are simply people who fancy mutually giving up natural rights. They'll join civilization soon enough after they spent all existing capital in their communities.

Re: Human action help with Grayson Lilburne

fakename — Wed, 04 Aug 2010 02:57:47 GMT

I think, that you understand my conclusions perfectly, nirgrahamUK.

But anyways, I guess that capitalism is equal to private property (as per Lilburne), but then where does that leave anarcho-communism in relation to anarcho-capitalism and therefore in relation to HA?

Re: Human action help with Grayson Lilburne

Daniel James Sanchez — Wed, 04 Aug 2010 01:50:58 GMT

Can we please resume the logic lesson on a different thread? Thanks.

Re: Human action help with Grayson Lilburne

nirgrahamUK — Wed, 04 Aug 2010 01:34:40 GMT

>>Therefore equality implies the conditional.

precisely, this is not controversial, it implies two conditionals! this is necessary ....

Re: Human action help with Grayson Lilburne

fakename — Wed, 04 Aug 2010 01:33:34 GMT

yeah, I know about the biconditional and equality but maybe I'm just talking philosophy here but there is something in my heart which makes me suspect that equality is a higher and nobler form of imputation and perhaps logically it can be said.

So if biconditionality is a way to represent equality in logic, then by conjunction simplification, one can say that one of the conditionals (A-->B) is implied. Therefore equality implies the conditional.

Re: Human action help with Grayson Lilburne

nirgrahamUK — Wed, 04 Aug 2010 01:26:53 GMT

fakename, if you want to represent equality in logic some otherway than using the = sign then you can use the bi-confitional <-> (the arrow points both ways)

(A -> B and B->A) is A<->B

Re: Human action help with Grayson Lilburne

Smiling Dave — Wed, 04 Aug 2010 01:26:46 GMT

That's really good. You have the right book then. All you need to do is reread it.

When you have reached the point in your studies where it becomes obvious that A=B is not the same as A->B, then we can continue the discussion if you wish.

Re: Human action help with Grayson Lilburne

fakename — Wed, 04 Aug 2010 01:20:36 GMT

What's the book that you use though because my book already has all the truth tables and connectives, etc.

Re: Human action help with Grayson Lilburne

Smiling Dave — Wed, 04 Aug 2010 01:11:41 GMT

As I said before, your use of a word should coincide with the common use. Here is how Wiki defines Capitalism. Note that it does not coincide with your definition. In particular, it has nothing to say about valuing anything.

Also, although your use of "subjective valuation" does coincide with general common use, in the little world of AE people have a different use for it. This may be causing some of the confusion as well.

As far as A=B being the same as A->B, nopers. Because A=B implies that A->B, but not vice versa. In fact, claiming such a thing shows you really have to go back to page one of your logic books. Same with your whole paragraph about kicking the ball. It is mistaken from start to finish.

All the logical principles I know will be found in any beginner's book that has truth tables and the "->" symbol to mean implication. We are talking about the first chapters of such a book.

As for semantics and logic, logic is only possible after we are all on the same page about the meanings of the words we are using.

Re: Human action help with Grayson Lilburne

fakename — Wed, 04 Aug 2010 00:44:22 GMT

Well maybe I'm just mealy-mouthed and have a far too liberal use of words but I'm pretty sure that capitalism can be construed as a being under(or comprehended) subjective value (as in, I value money and property and the freedom to use them). This I infer from a mises's use of terms -capitalism must be understood to mean, in HA's context, the valuing of the freedom to use property since the language of praxeology and by extension economics, is about subjective states of acting man.

As for the principle that A=B, I believe that it applies to both things and names. That's why I will clarify what I meant earlier by saying that A=B is the same as A-->B (or A leads to B). If two things are the same then the existence of one most excellently "leads to" the existence of the other.

If kicking a ball leads to it falling down a hill, as far as I'm concerned this principle of "leading to" is just a lesser instance of the principle of "equality" between 1+2 and 2+1.

Anyways though, about logic, maybe I should PM you or should I ask you about the logical principles you know right here; because if I do the latter I might derail the thread into a talk about logic? But if you know something I don't, I hope you don't mind me asking about it. Either way though I don't see how we are in disagreement, you seem to be talking semantics but I still seem to be talking logic...

Re: Human action help with Grayson Lilburne

Smiling Dave — Tue, 03 Aug 2010 21:12:13 GMT

It's just a question using words in the way they are commonly used.

"A=B" means A and B are two name for the same thing. Example: Barack Obama = current prez of USA.

"A leads to B" means that even though they are NOT the same thing at all, having A in the world will, sooner or later bring about the existence of B. Example: money printing leads to higher prices.

"A is comprehended under B" means A is one kind of B. Example: The movie Dracula is comprehended under horror films.

"A implies B" means you cannot have A and not have B. Example: the existence of a Thurston Howell the Third implies the existence of Thurston Howell the Second.

Capitalism and subjective value are not related in any of the above ways.

Perhaps you have some idea that you have not yet found the words for.