Political Theory

Re: How is it that the Mises ideal is so specially different from other ideals?

Juan — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 23:10:51 GMT

I've already answered all of your objections...multiple fucking times now.

lol. Little skeptic troll is losing his temper ?

Re: How is it that the Mises ideal is so specially different from other ideals?

Juan — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 23:09:02 GMT

Angurse:
You, a supposed libertarian, are blatantly rejecting individualism.

LOL. You are a moral nihilist who can't tell the difference between murdering people and liking tea or coffee - and yet you lecture me on libertarianism/individualism ?

What.A.Joke.

Well, don't let common sense get in the way of amoral 'individualism'. After all, individuals have, for instance, the non-right to tax, enslave and murder other uh...individuals...? - Oh, and slavery is just a new and improved ice-cream flavor.

Re: How is it that the Mises ideal is so specially different from other ideals?

Angurse — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 00:33:30 GMT

This is getting ridiculous, can you comprehend anything? Like before, you are just mindlessly repeating yourself. Ahh...

Laughing Man:

And communism transgresses the laws of supply and demand with a post-scarcity mentality.

False. A mentality doesn't transgress. The physical world consists of scarcity. Communists still exist in the physical world (regardless of where there mentality may be). Therefore communists still live in a world of scarcity.

Angurse:
Fact - There has never been a post-scarcity utopia. No one has lived in a post-scarcity utopia. They may think they did, or currently do, but that doesn't change the fact that scarcity still exists.

Angurse:
People cannot live in a post-scarcity community. Scarcity is unavoidable.

Angurse:
The laws of economics can't be transgressed any more than the laws of physics. Even for the sake of argument we pretend that there are no economic laws such actions would still result in failure. As scarcity just points out that resources are limited. But pretending they aren't won't change the conservation of mass.

Angurse:
They try. They fail. Laws always win.

Laughing Man:
If they currently do [ your words ] then the fact they ARE violates economic law. Now apply what you said to natural law.

Not my words. THEY DO NOT CURRENTLY LIVE IN A POST-SCARCITY WORLD. THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A POST-SCARCITY WORLD.

Laughing Man:
Just because they think [ they can murder ], and currently do, that change the fact that [ natural law ] still exists.

False.

Law of Gravity - Always applies to everyone regardless of mentality.

Law of Supply and Demand - Always applies to everyone regardless of mentality.

Law of Nature - Doesn't always apply to everyone. (By your own admission)

(Which one doesn't fit?)

Laughing Man:
But you suppose that they don't want to waste time or trouble. You are applying normative ethical statements to a populace, supposing that people want prosperous, rational economic calculation.

I don't care whether they want it! I'm doing it for myself. I'm selfish.

Laughing Man:
It's not karma. It's justice. Person A steals from Person B, Person B seeks proportional justice.

Of course. Paul Warfield Tibbet Jr. murders 66,000 people. Dies comfortably at 92. Those natural laws sure are fickle. Hey maybe if those Japanese people just didn't believe those damn laws of nuclear physics they could have transgressed them.

Laughing Man:
And your committing doublethink. You previously stated in this very response that there are people 'currently' living under post-scarcity societies. Yet now you say that such a state is rational because the laws of economics apply to them [ which is obviously false ]

Lie. I never once said people currently or in the past lived in post-scarcity societies. In fact:

Angurse:
Fact - There has never been a post-scarcity utopia. No one has lived in a post-scarcity utopia. They may think they did, or currently do, but that doesn't change the fact that scarcity still exists.

Angurse:
People cannot live in a post-scarcity community. Scarcity is unavoidable.

Angurse:
The laws of economics can't be transgressed any more than the laws of physics. Even for the sake of argument we pretend that there are no economic laws such actions would still result in failure. As scarcity just points out that resources are limited. But pretending they aren't won't change the conservation of mass.

Angurse:
They try. They fail. Laws always win.

Laughing Man:

You are treating these laws like constitutionalists treat the constitution itself. Economic laws don't grow fangs and attack you if you try to violate them. You can violate them, and rational people then realize 'Ok that didn't work and this is why.' However an irrationalist cannot reason in such a manner and they are a portion of our society. So they will continue to violate economic laws without a care and if that is the basis for what is a law to you [ the premise that it cannot be violated by anyone ] then it is not a law for irrationalists. What you propose is only acceptable to rational actors. You know this. You are a smart guy. Anyways I'm done with this topic. I've spent too much time on it and it is going nowhere. I'm moving on so you can have the last word to bash me or tell me how I'm supposedly wrong or something along those lines.

This completely contradicts Austrian Economics. If what you are saying is true then the printing of trillions of dollars really would be generating wealth (as opposed to following the laws of supply and demand).

I've already answered all of your objections...multiple fucking times now.

Re: How is it that the Mises ideal is so specially different from other ideals?

Andrew Cain — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 23:19:44 GMT

Angurse:

That was never my point. You are creating (yet another) Strawman. Concerning ethics, my point was that if there is such a thing as natural law then it cannot be transgressed. Just as the laws of physics, economics, etc.... cannot be transgressed.

And communism transgresses the laws of supply and demand with a post-scarcity mentality.

Angurse:

Fact - There has never been a post-scarcity utopia. No one has lived in a post-scarcity utopia. They may think they did, or currently do, but that doesn't change the fact that scarcity still exists.

If they currently do [ your words ] then the fact they ARE violates economic law. Now apply what you said to natural law.

Just because they think [ they can murder ], and currently do, that change the fact that [ natural law ] still exists.

Angurse:
The reason you tell people socialism cannot calculate is to save them, yourself, and everyone else involved the time and trouble.

But you suppose that they don't want to waste time or trouble. You are applying normative ethical statements to a populace, supposing that people want prosperous, rational economic calculation.

Angurse:
You've now conflated objective ethics with karma (which is also false).

It's not karma. It's justice. Person A steals from Person B, Person B seeks proportional justice.

Angurse:
You've done it again! Now you are blatantly stating that ethics isn't universal. One's "ability to be" has no place in the world of laws and objectivity. The laws of physics apply to the irrational and rationale equally. Same for economics. Not the same for ethics.

And your committing doublethink. You previously stated in this very response that there are people 'currently' living under post-scarcity societies. Yet now you say that such a state is rational because the laws of economics apply to them [ which is obviously false ]

You are treating these laws like constitutionalists treat the constitution itself. Economic laws don't grow fangs and attack you if you try to violate them. You can violate them, and rational people then realize 'Ok that didn't work and this is why.' However an irrationalist cannot reason in such a manner and they are a portion of our society. So they will continue to violate economic laws without a care and if that is the basis for what is a law to you [ the premise that it cannot be violated by anyone ] then it is not a law for irrationalists. What you propose is only acceptable to rational actors. You know this. You are a smart guy. Anyways I'm done with this topic. I've spent too much time on it and it is going nowhere. I'm moving on so you can have the last word to bash me or tell me how I'm supposedly wrong or something along those lines.

Re: How is it that the Mises ideal is so specially different from other ideals?

liberty student — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 19:34:36 GMT

jwilsn1020:
liberty, be careful not to confuse opposite and obverse.

I wasn't. I merely worked from his assertion that they were opposites.

I leave the minutiae to those best suited to it.

Re: How is it that the Mises ideal is so specially different from other ideals?

jwilsn1020 — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 19:24:26 GMT

liberty student:

Democracy for Breakfast:
What is it about Anarcho-Capitalism that makes it so different then Communism? I mean, the two are just opposing ideals, however history has shown that Communism is ineffective, so what is it about Anarcho-Capitalism that makes it more special then any other ideal?

Well if one is wrong, and the other is its opposite, then that might mean it is right.

liberty, be careful not to confuse opposite and obverse. What you have said is true for the latter but not necessarily the former

Re: How is it that the Mises ideal is so specially different from other ideals?

Angurse — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 18:36:26 GMT

Juan:
No we are not because your position is pattently absurd - I explained that the subject matter of morality and the subject matter of taste are different.

Yet you simply refused to do it with the dictionary. (Or at all for that matter)

Juan:
Fact - the vast majority of people think, for instance, that murder is wrong, AND when they engage in murder they try to rationalize it "we need to kill the terrorists" - of course, the rationalization fails...

Which just shows how ethics aren't objective.

Juan:
This is, what, the 4th time that you pretend that people being wrong about X, means X is is not 'truth-apt' ?

And again you fail to actually address my point.

Juan:
Or philosophy. Whatever. It seems you first mocked 'philosophy' and yet you keep on doing (bad) philosophy...Not very consistent eh?

If you took the time to read, you wouldn't repeat such mistakes. (Maybe you would?)

Juan:

I think you know that skepticism is a (lame) philosophical position ?

Of course. Don't question god, Jesus or the bible. Religious Ethical Zealot.

Juan:
No, I explained that morality deals with non-subjective issues. As to "'science". you never defined it, so I don't know what you are talking about. I mean, I imagine that for you science == physics and logical positivism ?

You sure did. I mean, you "Juan" explained it. Which is just saying false and not providing any evidence. Even when asked. For me, science doesn't depend on whether people are "good" or not. (Objective)

Juan:

Anyways, morality/ethics are a branch of philosophy and as such they are 'science'. You know, science used to be called 'philosophy' and there were two subdivisions : natural philosophy, now rebranded 'physics' and moral philosophy...

Used to? What happened? (Thats not proof of objectivity in ethics in any case)

Juan:
LOL. What's that even supposed to mean ?

You, a supposed libertarian, are blatantly rejecting individualism.

Re: How is it that the Mises ideal is so specially different from other ideals?

Juan — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 18:25:19 GMT

If not answering equals no proof then you are in the same boat.

No we are not because your position is pattently absurd - I explained that the subject matter of morality and the subject matter of taste are different.

Fact - People have different moral beliefs.

Fact - the vast majority of people think, for instance, that murder is wrong, AND when they engage in murder they try to rationalize it "we need to kill the terrorists" - of course, the rationalization fails...

(Or do rapists, murderers, Christians, vegans, anti-propertarians,

This is, what, the 4th time that you pretend that people being wrong about X, means X is is not 'truth-apt' ?

And pseudo-philosophy? Really?

Or philosophy. Whatever. It seems you first mocked 'philosophy' and yet you keep on doing (bad) philosophy...Not very consistent eh?

I think you know that skepticism is a (lame) philosophical position ?

1) That common usage implies that morality == science.

No, I explained that morality deals with non-subjective issues. As to "'science". you never defined it, so I don't know what you are talking about. I mean, I imagine that for you science == physics and logical positivism ?

Anyways, morality/ethics are a branch of philosophy and as such they are 'science'. You know, science used to be called 'philosophy' and there were two subdivisions : natural philosophy, now rebranded 'physics' and moral philosophy...

You are going off of the deep end, leaving the realm of libertarianism and individualism and entering into the egregore. "Everyone is the same, they must be."

LOL. What's that even supposed to mean ?

Re: How is it that the Mises ideal is so specially different from other ideals?

Angurse — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 18:13:15 GMT

Juan:
You are equating laws with mechanical laws. Moral agents however have free-will so your saying that moral law is not a law because it can be violated shows that either you don't know the basics, or else you set up a strawman (law will magically stop crime) because you only can refute strawmen.

Translation: It isn't a law.

Re: How is it that the Mises ideal is so specially different from other ideals?

Angurse — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 18:08:03 GMT

Juan:
So, you don't have any proof, at all, that morality == aesthetics. You admit that your position is just lame pseudo-philosophy? Thanks.

If not answering equals no proof then you are in the same boat. (Minus common sense and history). Fact - People have different moral beliefs. Now, prove why they ought not to. (Or do rapists, murderers, Christians, vegans, anti-propertarians, etc... just not exist?)

And pseudo-philosophy? Really? Now you are appealing to academic standards (Make sure not to mention the laugh-inducing "objective ethics").

Juan:
Nope. You need to prove two things :

1) that common usage implies that morality == aesthetics. (Or else admit that you speak your own personal and arbitrary language.)
2) that common usage declares that morality is subjective.

Nope. You need to prove one thing:

1) That common usage implies that morality == science.

Juan:

Now, common sense suggests that 'subjective' morality is sheer nonsense, since morality deals with relationships between persons, not with whatever whims or tastes persons hold individually.

Morality is not concerned with personal & private tastes, it deals with interpersonal and 'public' (so to speak) conduct.

Of course, because its not blatantly obvious that people have different moral compasses. You are going off of the deep end, leaving the realm of libertarianism and individualism and entering into the egregore. "Everyone is the same, they must be."

Re: How is it that the Mises ideal is so specially different from other ideals?

Juan — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 17:53:59 GMT

You've done it again! Now you are blatantly stating that ethics isn't universal. One's "ability to be" has no place in the world of laws and objectivity.

You are equating laws with mechanical laws. Moral agents however have free-will so your saying that moral law is not a law because it can be violated shows that either you don't know the basics, or else you set up a strawman (law will magically stop crime) because you only can refute strawmen.

Re: How is it that the Mises ideal is so specially different from other ideals?

Juan — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 17:48:59 GMT

Angurse:
The same place where it says humour == personal aesthetics. History and common sense.

So, you don't have any proof, at all, that morality == aesthetics. You admit that your position is just lame pseudo-philosophy? Thanks.

How about you show where it states that morality is objective.

Nope. You need to prove two things :

1) that common usage implies that morality == aesthetics. (Or else admit that you speak your own personal and arbitrary language.)
2) that common usage declares that morality is subjective.

Now, common sense suggests that 'subjective' morality is sheer nonsense, since morality deals with relationships between persons, not with whatever whims or tastes persons hold individually.

Morality is not concerned with personal & private tastes, it deals with interpersonal and 'public' (so to speak) conduct.

Re: How is it that the Mises ideal is so specially different from other ideals?

Angurse — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 17:08:18 GMT

Laughing Man:

How long they can survive in a post-scarcity system is not relevant to this discussion. Concerning ethics, your point was never 'murders can keep on murdering for an extended period of time.'

That was never my point. You are creating (yet another) Strawman. Concerning ethics, my point was that if there is such a thing as natural law then it cannot be transgressed. Just as the laws of physics, economics, etc.... cannot be transgressed.

Laughing Man:
Communism presupposes a post-scarcity world. Now either a group of people have lived under communism [ a post-scarcity utopia ] thus transgressing your theory that no one can transgress supply and demand or communism never happened. Again how long they survive under communism, how well they survive is an entirely different point. It is the fact they can do it. That was your claim over murders. The fact they can murder people means that there is no universal ethic.

Fact - There has never been a post-scarcity utopia. No one has lived in a post-scarcity utopia. They may think they did, or currently do, but that doesn't change the fact that scarcity still exists.

Laughing Man:
They can be transgressed, if they can't be than there is no reason to tell people that monetary inflation leads to business cycles. There would be no reason to tell people that socialist and monopolistic markets cannot calculate. People wouldn't be able to carry out these things. They try and for a time nothing erroneous happens.

Something erroneous is always happening. Learn AE, Jumping in the air doesn't mean you are transgressing the laws of gravity. Hang gliding doesn't mean you are transgressing the laws of gravity. The reason you tell people socialism cannot calculate is to save them, yourself, and everyone else involved the time and trouble. Just as you tell I child with an umbrella that he won't fly if he jumps off the roof. (Learned that the hard way)

Laughing Man:
It comes back to slap them in the face. But you main objection to objective ethics is that people can do it, nothing about the results or legal ramification. Merely the fact they could and did eliminated objectivity.

You've now conflated objective ethics with karma (which is also false).

Laughing Man:
I've conceded nothing. In discussing rational systems of ethics, you cannot expect irrational individuals to abide by rational. Do you think irrational people have the ability to be rational? Do you disagree with 'ought implies can'?

You've done it again! Now you are blatantly stating that ethics isn't universal. One's "ability to be" has no place in the world of laws and objectivity. The laws of physics apply to the irrational and rationale equally. Same for economics. Not the same for ethics.

Re: How is it that the Mises ideal is so specially different from other ideals?

Andrew Cain — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 14:47:50 GMT

Angurse:
The laws of economics can't be transgressed any more than the laws of physics.

They can be transgressed, if they can't be than there is no reason to tell people that monetary inflation leads to business cycles. There would be no reason to tell people that socialist and monopolistic markets cannot calculate. People wouldn't be able to carry out these things. They try and for a time nothing erroneous happens. It comes back to slap them in the face. But you main objection to objective ethics is that people can do it, nothing about the results or legal ramification. Merely the fact they could and did eliminated objectivity.

Angurse:
there isn't anything more to discuss, you've already conceded.

I've conceded nothing. In discussing rational systems of ethics, you cannot expect irrational individuals to abide by rational. Do you think irrational people have the ability to be rational? Do you disagree with 'ought implies can'?

Re: How is it that the Mises ideal is so specially different from other ideals?

Andrew Cain — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 14:39:51 GMT

Angurse:
Thats not a logical extension. Its a just fabrication. People cannot live in a post-scarcity community. Scarcity is unavoidable.

How long they can survive in a post-scarcity system is not relevant to this discussion. Concerning ethics, your point was never 'murders can keep on murdering for an extended period of time.' Communism presupposes a post-scarcity world. Now either a group of people have lived under communism [ a post-scarcity utopia ] thus transgressing your theory that no one can transgress supply and demand or communism never happened. Again how long they survive under communism, how well they survive is an entirely different point. It is the fact they can do it. That was your claim over murders. The fact they can murder people means that there is no universal ethic.