Economics Questions

Re: Does Walter Block really endorse of the positions in Defending the Undefendable?

Caley McKibbin — Sun, 21 Nov 2010 08:02:32 GMT

I mean would not a blackmail business arise, in the advent of legalization, which would proliferate and become a dead weight on society, it would produce nothing, but be a large financial drain on private firms, trying to pay them of.

More accurately described, a business in information would arise. What you call deadweight I call an information market. Libel/blackmail criminalization is free speech violation. I read the book like 5-6 years ago, but I'm guessing that is what Block says. I don't know what he says about crying fire in a theatre.

Re: Does Walter Block really endorse of the positions in Defending the Undefendable?

thelion — Sat, 20 Nov 2010 17:25:11 GMT

xarthaz

Action axiom and property are conception originally put forward by De Condillac (and De Tracy interpretted it as relating to property and self-ownership). Mises uses the idea to develop economics; he probably read both, since Menger and Jevons cited Condillac.

Most neuroscientists have a very high opinion of Condillac's treatise on sensations, if they not behaviorists (except in the Karl Lashley sense, who called himself behaviorist but is not really, so he's fine). Condillac had the first developed theory of reflexes, sensations, and behavior based on stimulus and response, and how the external world is interpretted by the brain (he used "soul" and "brain" interchangably). Most research in neuroscience is filling in the blanks of how the brain works more or less within his framework, even if authors themselves don't know it.

As far as action axiom itself, it is a logico-mathematical tool. As Jevons would say, it belong to the realm of science of science, where if science is recognizing A = B, then science of science is recognizing A = B .|. B = C => A = C.

Re: Does Walter Block really endorse of the positions in Defending the Undefendable?

Bert — Sat, 20 Nov 2010 16:48:42 GMT

It would be better to ask Mr. Block yourself, but he seems to take people or actions that are generally frowned upon and puts it through the perspective of those who are the ones acting in said scenarios. By doing this you may see these people/actions through a new light, and perspective you haven't thought of before, take Defending the Slumlord for example. When he explains why slumlords exist, you get a new light on the subject, compared to someone just bashing slumlords without knowing why things are the way they are.

Re: Does Walter Block really endorse of the positions in Defending the Undefendable?

Edmund Carlyle — Sat, 20 Nov 2010 16:37:16 GMT

Some animals certainly do act, and economize. They're rather stupid, though, which combined with their strong predispositions prevents them from being possible to integrate with the division of labor.

Computers don't act because they're not conscious. Consciosness and reasoning are not data, data is only data because there are thinking beings to interpret it. Human brains are computers, but they're not just computers. Features of it causally generate consciousness. Babbages machines do not.

Re: Does Walter Block really endorse of the positions in Defending the Undefendable?

Turin — Sat, 20 Nov 2010 16:32:37 GMT

"What do you mean by positions? The vocations that he defends? He's defending civil disobedience. That book seems to get a lot of negative review. I don't get it."

It seems unclear to me whether he is playing devil's advocate or does he really believe them. I mean legalizing 'Crying fire in a theater' if it inadvertently leads to the deaths of fellow theater goers seems a bit a callous.

Defending civil disobedience is not in and of its self unpalatable to be people perse, but say the legalization of blackmail and slander seem excessive. I mean would not a blackmail business arise, in the advent of legalization, which would proliferate and become a dead weight on society, it would produce nothing, but be a large financial drain on private firms, trying to pay them of.

Re: Does Walter Block really endorse of the positions in Defending the Undefendable?

nirgrahamUK — Sat, 20 Nov 2010 12:15:08 GMT

Do you have an argument that makes the case for incompatibility or are we to take it on faith?

Re: Does Walter Block really endorse of the positions in Defending the Undefendable?

Anonymous — Sat, 20 Nov 2010 11:54:48 GMT

i dont reject teleology, merely point out its incompatibility with science. The two dont mix, yet some austrians blatantly appeal to science as a justification of selective use of the mysticist concepts(aka cars dont act,animals dont act, computers dont act, etc).

Re: Does Walter Block really endorse of the positions in Defending the Undefendable?

nirgrahamUK — Sat, 20 Nov 2010 11:33:19 GMT

Xarthaz, how is talk of intentions mystic? How can you reject teleology when the only way others can understand "Xarthaz rejects teleology" is by their reliance on teleology?

Re: Does Walter Block really endorse of the positions in Defending the Undefendable?

Anonymous — Sat, 20 Nov 2010 11:17:26 GMT

Children, as thinking beings, have self-ownership. A fetus is not a thinking being. Professor Block's distinction follows therefrom.

action axiom is a mysticist premise that rejects science in the first place, so you cant possibly reject it on a scientific basis.

Re: Does Walter Block really endorse of the positions in Defending the Undefendable?

Anonymous — Sat, 20 Nov 2010 11:17:04 GMT

Children, as thinking beings, have self-ownership. A fetus is not a thinking being. Professor Block's distinction follows therefrom.

action axiom is a mysticist premise that rejects science in the first place, so you cant possibly reject it on a scientific basis.

Re: Does Walter Block really endorse of the positions in Defending the Undefendable?

scineram — Sat, 20 Nov 2010 10:38:30 GMT

Infants are not thinking beings.

Re: Does Walter Block really endorse of the positions in Defending the Undefendable?

Caley McKibbin — Sat, 20 Nov 2010 08:03:13 GMT

What do you mean by positions? The vocations that he defends? He's defending civil disobedience. That book seems to get a lot of negative review. I don't get it.

Re: Does Walter Block really endorse of the positions in Defending the Undefendable?

thelion — Sat, 20 Nov 2010 07:00:33 GMT

Children, as thinking beings, have self-ownership. A fetus is not a thinking being. Professor Block's distinction follows therefrom.

This is how I understand it, at least.

Re: Does Walter Block really endorse of the positions in Defending the Undefendable?

Angurse — Sat, 20 Nov 2010 06:53:28 GMT

Ask Dr. Block yourself.

Re: Does Walter Block really endorse of the positions in Defending the Undefendable?

Bert — Sat, 20 Nov 2010 06:03:17 GMT

There's already at least 5 abortion threads made in the past year it seems. Browse them to see what had come of such topics...