Political Theory

Re: Rothbards Critique of Hume: (Seek clarification)

Nitroadict — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 01:36:03 GMT

Richard D.:

liberty student:

Pap like this,

Therefore, as libertarians we must abandon these arguments and look for new ones, or else risk never being taken seriously by our rivals. (Shahar)

is what academe creates. People who worry about being listened to, enough that they are willing to ignore ideas if they are not well received. A culture that rewards conformity (monopoly) as opposed to the market which rewards creativity and individuality, will always breed this sort of intellectual conservatism and self-censorship.

I recall having a similar reaction to the quote that liberty student references above. I remember once having a brief email discussion with Mr. Shahar, sparked by the same essay from which this quote was taken. In my own correspondence, I mainly wanted to thank the author for offering potentially new ways to look at problems concerning Rothbard's conception of human rights. However, with regard to the "taken seriously by our rivals" idea, I felt the need to explain to him my personal position on the matter:

"Indeed there is a strong need for libertarians to discover ideas that move the discussion forward and do not stifle it, just as you have said. Progress most certainly depends on it, as you also pointed out. And while being taken seriously by one's rivals may be a possible goal, and can certainly have its advantages, I believe that being taken seriously by newcomers to philosophy who are in the market for good ideas may be even more important. Because such newcomers, while not 'rivals' in the sense that they already have a platform to promote, are actually those for whose benefit, presumably, the ideas were sought in the first place. I wouldn't think of my work as being something that I do for the sake of being taken seriously by my rivals, so much as, something that may be of assistance to those who find it useful or helpful, something of possible value to those who have no agenda to push or axe to grind, but who merely want to understand things in a more satisfactory way."

It would seem to be very easy to lose one's initial focus on the goal of understanding, and to come to see the acceptance of established thinkers as the true goal behind the pursuit of philosophical ideas.

I largely agree with the "get 'em while they're young & new" approach. The main problem I had with Shahar's statement of the importance of being seriously considered by rivals is that it seemed to be reasoned more out of guilt than anything logical that has not been tried before.

Hayek is the safest choice for anyone in the mainstream to quote per the Austrian school, methinks, but I don't remember Hayek ever saying that he purposely was trying to be accepted by rivals. The best one can do really, concerning being more seriously considered by rivals, is three simple things:

1.) Don't take all arguments personally, emotionally, & on the defensive.

2.) Don't assume everyone that disagrees with you are idiots.

3.) Don't concern yourself with a moral crusade & stick to the topics at hand (i.e. don't go off into tangential morality lectures of statism when the issue being debated is more specific than the general question of say, "Is the state moral?". Not everyone is going to have the patience to be shot through tangents when the conversation may be about some specific issue).

Re: Rothbards Critique of Hume: (Seek clarification)

Richard D. — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 00:59:46 GMT

liberty student:

Pap like this,

Therefore, as libertarians we must abandon these arguments and look for new ones, or else risk never being taken seriously by our rivals. (Shahar)

is what academe creates. People who worry about being listened to, enough that they are willing to ignore ideas if they are not well received. A culture that rewards conformity (monopoly) as opposed to the market which rewards creativity and individuality, will always breed this sort of intellectual conservatism and self-censorship.

I recall having a similar reaction to the quote that liberty student references above. I remember once having a brief email discussion with Mr. Shahar, sparked by the same essay from which this quote was taken. In my own correspondence, I mainly wanted to thank the author for offering potentially new ways to look at problems concerning Rothbard's conception of human rights. However, with regard to the "taken seriously by our rivals" idea, I felt the need to explain to him my personal position on the matter:

"Indeed there is a strong need for libertarians to discover ideas that move the discussion forward and do not stifle it, just as you have said. Progress most certainly depends on it, as you also pointed out. And while being taken seriously by one's rivals may be a possible goal, and can certainly have its advantages, I believe that being taken seriously by newcomers to philosophy who are in the market for good ideas may be even more important. Because such newcomers, while not 'rivals' in the sense that they already have a platform to promote, are actually those for whose benefit, presumably, the ideas were sought in the first place. I wouldn't think of my work as being something that I do for the sake of being taken seriously by my rivals, so much as, something that may be of assistance to those who find it useful or helpful, something of possible value to those who have no agenda to push or axe to grind, but who merely want to understand things in a more satisfactory way."

It would seem to be very easy to lose one's initial focus on the goal of understanding, and to come to see the acceptance of established thinkers as the true goal behind the pursuit of philosophical ideas.

Re: Rothbards Critique of Hume: (Seek clarification)

Physiocrat — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 11:56:31 GMT

Bumpity bump Lam.

Re: Rothbards Critique of Hume: (Seek clarification)

Physiocrat — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 08:36:55 GMT

laminustacitus:

Physiocrat:
Please tell me then what else would be thrown overboard for not being realistic? As is probably obvious I think we're going to have an epistemological dispute at this point.

The vast majority of economic knowledge which has been based on equilibrium theory.

I have never ever denied that. I said it was an obviously useful concept but had shaky foundations- Hulsmann puts it on Terra Firma hence my admiration for the piece.

laminustacitus:

Physiocrat:
Economics is the study of human action based on the action axiom plus a few inductive postulates from which the whole corpus of economics is deduce.

You didn't actually say anything here - just because you deduce economics does not mean you eschew models; for instance, the Austrian theory of the business cycle is a model.

In what sense are you meaning it is a model? I believe it to be an accurate description of the real world. Now obviously it can't take into account empirical incidents in every cycle but the cause of the cycle is realistic and sound.

laminustacitus:

Physiocrat:
It does not create "models" as such unless your following the circle cult of Vienna.

Then the Austrian theory of the business cycle never came from either Mises, or Hayek.

I never knew they drew a circle and worshipped Moloch.

Re: Rothbards Critique of Hume: (Seek clarification)

laminustacitus — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 18:27:23 GMT

Paul:

Because, if we accept it, then we must also admit that human "domination" of "lower" animals is also unjustifiable. Human beings never ask polar bears their thoughts on zoos. Horses are never allowed to debate the justice of their position in society.

but if polar bears and horses started (read: were capable of) arguing for their position, we would have to justify ourselves!

So I can kill you as long as you don't argue your position? What if I find you asleep, in a state in which you cannot argue your position, am I justified in enslaving you, and forever keeping you in a state of sleep so that you could never argue with me?

Re: Rothbards Critique of Hume: (Seek clarification)

laminustacitus — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 18:16:35 GMT

Physiocrat:
Please tell me then what else would be thrown overboard for not being realistic? As is probably obvious I think we're going to have an epistemological dispute at this point.

The vast majority of economic knowledge which has been based on equilibrium theory.

Physiocrat:
Economics is the study of human action based on the action axiom plus a few inductive postulates from which the whole corpus of economics is deduce.

You didn't actually say anything here - just because you deduce economics does not mean you eschew models; for instance, the Austrian theory of the business cycle is a model.

Physiocrat:
It does not create "models" as such unless your following the circle cult of Vienna.

Then the Austrian theory of the business cycle never came from either Mises, or Hayek.

Re: Rothbards Critique of Hume: (Seek clarification)

Physiocrat — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 08:35:14 GMT

laminustacitus:

Hayek's Prices and Production - a work that is in the field of equilibrium analysis.

Well if you put my comment in context I was talking about living economists. Also if my understanding of Hayek's view of equilibrium is correct then his notion of it is fallacious.

laminustacitus:

Physiocrat:

Does economics describe the real world?

If so then we can do this:

1. Economics describes the real world.

2. Old Equilibrium theory is an unrealistic concept.

3. Therefore equilibrium theorising has no place in economics.

This is unbearably naive. Economics describes the world, to the best of its abilities, through models, and models are necessarily unrealistic because they idealize certain portions of the economy in order to be studied. Equilibrium theory is just another model, and the idea that it should be rejected because it is "unrealistic" would result in most of economics thrown overboard because those theories also idealize in order to analyze.

Please tell me then what else would be thrown overboard for not being realistic? As is probably obvious I think we're going to have an epistemological dispute at this point. Economics is the study of human action based on the action axiom plus a few inductive postulates from which the whole corpus of economics is deduce. It does not create "models" as such unless your following the circle cult of Vienna.

Re: Rothbards Critique of Hume: (Seek clarification)

Paul — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 07:02:34 GMT

laminustacitus:

Paul:

GilesStratton:

In any case, the fact that Callahan and Murphy ripped Hoppe a new one when neither of them are trained philosophers only makes the case against AE even stronger.

"Ripped Hoppe a new one" is a little strong...a bit like saying "nyah, nyah, is not!" is a knock-out argument! They clearly don't understand his argument.

How don't they understand his argument? What are the mistakes they make?

Well, it's been quite a while since I read their response, but I remember thinking they just weren't connecting with the argument at all. Rereading...the thing about "arguing at a funeral" is irrelevant; the point about Aristotle arguing only with other Greeks misses the point (what distinguishes them from barbarians?) and doesn't apply to animals as they claim:

Because, if we accept it, then we must also admit that human "domination" of "lower" animals is also unjustifiable. Human beings never ask polar bears their thoughts on zoos. Horses are never allowed to debate the justice of their position in society.

but if polar bears and horses started (read: were capable of) arguing for their position, we would have to justify ourselves! That they don't is not our fault. When they say "horses are never allowed to debate", surely they don't think we're guilty of actively restraining them?

The theist might believe that God has granted humans temporary control over His property, just as a landlord leases an apartment. However, just as the landlord would prohibit certain destructive acts, so too (the theist might think) would God prohibit such things as suicide and prostitution. Because of his worldview, such a theist might argue (against a libertarian atheist, perhaps) that people do not own their bodies, and that it is justified for outsiders to use force to prevent suicide.

But they're assuming random outsiders can set themselves up as agents of the owner and enforce his (purported) will. Sorry, but no. If the theist wants to justify the use of force to prevent suicide, he has to be able to prove that he's legitimately acting as God's agent (granting, arguendo, that God is in fact the owner of the would-be suicide) -- i.e., God needs to step forward and say so.

Finally, we point out with some irony that Hoppe and Rothbardian libertarians in general do not believe in universal self-ownership. In particular, they believe that criminals may be rightfully enslaved to pay off their debts to victims (or their heirs).

Assuming this is true, they mean to imply that this "enslavement" means the criminal isn't a self-owner. But that's the same error made by people who think the existence of murderers "disproves" the notion that murder is wrong, etc.

Re: Rothbards Critique of Hume: (Seek clarification)

Paul — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 05:35:32 GMT

GilesStratton:

make no ad homines or anything of that sort

FWIW, "ad homines" is silly (maybe deliberately so, like "ad hiphopinem" is obviously intended to be, but I suspect you're serious); the plural of "ad hominem", ISTM, should be "ad hominem" (the full phrase being "ad hominem arguments", or "argumenta ad hominem"), but "ad hominems" would make more sense; "ad homines" changes the meaning...

Re: Rothbards Critique of Hume: (Seek clarification)

laminustacitus — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 20:35:05 GMT

liberty student:

laminustacitus:
Hayek's Prices and Production - a work that is in the field of equilibrium analysis.

Pay attention Lam. Hayek already won the Nobel Prize.

There's really no point in paying attention when the post is outright economically illiterate.

Re: Rothbards Critique of Hume: (Seek clarification)

liberty student — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 20:30:37 GMT

laminustacitus:
Hayek's Prices and Production - a work that is in the field of equilibrium analysis.

Pay attention Lam. Hayek already won the Nobel Prize.

Re: Rothbards Critique of Hume: (Seek clarification)

laminustacitus — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 20:04:56 GMT

Physiocrat:
1. Please cite the works of economists whose work towers above Hulsmann's from Mount Olympus?

Hayek's Prices and Production - a work that is in the field of equilibrium analysis.

Physiocrat:

Does economics describe the real world?

If so then we can do this:

1. Economics describes the real world.

2. Old Equilibrium theory is an unrealistic concept.

3. Therefore equilibrium theorising has no place in economics.

This is unbearably naive. Economics describes the world, to the best of its abilities, through models, and models are necessarily unrealistic because they idealize certain portions of the economy in order to be studied. Equilibrium theory is just another model, and the idea that it should be rejected because it is "unrealistic" would result in most of economics thrown overboard because those theories also idealize in order to analyze.

Re: Rothbards Critique of Hume: (Seek clarification)

Physiocrat — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 14:06:51 GMT

GilesStratton:

So, wait, the author you would nominate has three papers you consider to be really great? This was my problem with your original point, even if I agree that these three papers are really great (I don't), that pales in comparison to the work of other potential winners.

Does influence on the profession not matter to you? Once again, I find it odd that you'd be disappointed if it was awared to anybody else, when your 1st choice has had little to no influence on the profession at large.

Like I said to Jon, with regards to Reisman, I've not read his work. I don't really intend to read any of it any soon because the idea that equilibrium has to be realistic is beyond me (whoever said it was realistic?)

1. Please cite the works of economists whose work towers above Hulsmann's from Mount Olympus?

2. I really don't care about influence- I think it sad that Hulsmann hasn't been that influential in Austrian circles. I remember emailing about the General Error Cycle piece to find any critiques of it yet and he said he was aware on none and was disappointed that the regular ABCT advocates didn't engage with him. Now to say that I was disappointed that Hulsmann didn't win the Nobel prize isn't true: I forgot they were giving it out at this time of year and know that he never has a hope in hell of winning it. I only mentioned him as an example of someone who if he won it would show that the Nobel prize givers had really changed and that Austrianism was becoming mainstream. That said I do consider Hulsmann as the best living economist.

Does economics describe the real world?

If so then we can do this:

1. Economics describes the real world.

2. Old Equilibrium theory is an unrealistic concept.

3. Therefore equilibrium theorising has no place in economics.

In the Mengerian tradition as economics is a casual realist science and so if a concept doesn't fit in with the methodology it should be purged. So you the conclusion you must reach is either to abandon equilibrium or to put on realist grounds. Or abandon the Mengerian methodology.

Re: Rothbards Critique of Hume: (Seek clarification)

hayekianxyz — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 13:43:09 GMT

Physiocrat:

Er what about interest theory and general theory of error cycles (oh no Rothbard monopoly theory- Evil state a priori can't have that)? So you think using a completely unrealistic concept or abandoning the use of it due to that reason was a justifiable and reasonable thing to do? Giles your continuing trend of anti-rationalism is disturbing.

What do you consider a "notable advance in economics"?

So, wait, the author you would nominate has three papers you consider to be really great? This was my problem with your original point, even if I agree that these three papers are really great (I don't), that pales in comparison to the work of other potential winners.
Does influence on the profession not matter to you? Once again, I find it odd that you'd be disappointed if it was awared to anybody else, when your 1st choice has had little to no influence on the profession at large.

Like I said to Jon, with regards to Reisman, I've not read his work. I don't really intend to read any of it any soon because the idea that equilibrium has to be realistic is beyond me (whoever said it was realistic?)

Re: Rothbards Critique of Hume: (Seek clarification)

Physiocrat — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 08:41:37 GMT

GilesStratton:

Who else would you nominate? Huelsmann? Same applies to him as it does to Hoppe, not to mention, he's not really done any significant work in economics (and let me make this clear, I don't think putting "equilibrium on realist and essentialist grounds" is a revolutionary or even notable advance in economics?).

Er what about interest theory and general theory of error cycles (oh no Rothbard monopoly theory- Evil state a priori can't have that)? So you think using a completely unrealistic concept or abandoning the use of it due to that reason was a justifiable and reasonable thing to do? Giles your continuing trend of anti-rationalism is disturbing.

What do you consider a "notable advance in economics"?