Political Theory

Re: How might libertarians solve the Trolley Problem?

E. R. Olovetto — Mon, 28 Jun 2010 20:56:04 GMT

Cult members are always so nasty when anyone challenges their cult dogma. IF I turned out to be wrong about this, it couldn't be that I am mistaken -- no, I must be LYING! Because, after all, I am an EVIL STATIST!

Check out the many additions Mises made between editions one and three laying out the many legitimate tasks of government. Now, who would it be, who Mises knew, who was denying those tasks were legitimate, and made Mises feel he had to add that defense? And why do you think the Mises Institute went back to edition one for their "scholar's" version? These were Mises own changes, and LVMI decided to try to blot them out of history! Why? Right in the intro it says "Because they were not for the better" (I quote from memory).

Cult members? O RLY?

In the introduction to the Scholar's Edition, there is a list of the changes Mises made in later editions; you can also download the 4th edition with all the changes from mises.org. But in Gene Callahan's crazy world, publishing something for free on the Internet counts as trying to blot it out of history.

Yes, the intro lists changes in 2nd/3rd editions. I guess I could see if these are preserved into the 4th edition because it gives pages/excerpts. The one excerpt cited in the scholar's intro is typical baseless assertions from Mises on his defense of statism.

ANYHOW, this whole charade by Callhan is a big fat strawman. The passage I was referring to exists back to the 1940 Nationalökonomie, and although my German is poor, I pointed out that it was unchanged from 1st-4th edition in English.

Re: How might libertarians solve the Trolley Problem?

David K. — Sat, 26 Jun 2010 21:59:16 GMT

"These were Mises own changes, and LVMI decided to try to blot them out of history!"

In the introduction to the Scholar's Edition, there is a list of the changes Mises made in later editions; you can also download the 4th edition with all the changes from mises.org. But in Gene Callahan's crazy world, publishing something for free on the Internet counts as trying to blot it out of history.

Re: How might libertarians solve the Trolley Problem?

liberty student — Fri, 25 Jun 2010 21:06:42 GMT

Gene Callahan:
Cult members are always so nasty when anyone challenges their cult dogma. IF I turned out to be wrong about this, it couldn't be that I am mistaken -- no, I must be LYING! Because, after all, I am an EVIL STATIST!

Well, if you are not lying, and may only be mistaken, could you back up your assertions with more than motive as a conspiracy theory?

Gene Callahan:
Check out the many additions Mises made between editions one and three laying out the many legitimate tasks of government. Now, who would it be, who Mises knew, who was denying those tasks were legitimate, and made Mises feel he had to add that defense?

But that doesn't prove anything. Based on what I know of Mises, he wouldn't change what he thought if he didn't believe it. This is a man who took a lot of risks with his own life, and made sacrifices with his career, and yet you portray him as someone who was easily bullied by Rothbard. It seems very inconsistent with Mises' character.

Not to say it is impossible, but surely you realize the magnitude of your accusation?

Gene Callahan:
And why do you think the Mises Institute went back to edition one for their "scholar's" version? These were Mises own changes, and LVMI decided to try to blot them out of history! Why? Right in the intro it says "Because they were not for the better" (I quote from memory).

And who in particular is masterminding this revision of history?

I kind of knew you by your reputation before you started posting to this thread, but you have exceeded everything I have heard by leaps and bounds. You constantly portray yourself as somehow being better than the people you are criticizing because they may be using the same tactics and language you are utilizing.

I pointed this out yesterday, and you disappeared rather quickly. Obviously you're an intelligent man, but I am puzzled why you continue to act so foolishly unless you really think a different standard applies to you, or that no one is clever enough to see how uncommitted you are to productive and civil discussion.

You have shared no proof of anything you claim, but you do have a theory, and a theory is a start. But can you honestly promote your theory as fact, given that it seems to be based almost exclusively on your intuition?

Also, I really resent your portrayal of people in this community as cultists. First, because you are new to this community, and do not know many of the participants or the history of the discussion (this is not LvMI proper), and second, because more namecalling (which you don't enjoy done to you) is embarassing to read, particularly given how many times your own work has been positively cited, referred and referenced here.

Perhaps you should take a break, and when you're ready to have an honest discussion without the theatrics and logical fallacies, the pursuit of knowledge and a better understanding can result.

Re: How might libertarians solve the Trolley Problem?

nirgrahamUK — Fri, 25 Jun 2010 20:47:39 GMT

>>Rothbard attended Mises' seminar EVERY SINGLE WEEK FOR YEARS. Are you suggesting Mises was unaware of Rothbard's views?

no.

Is your answer to the question that there is no such literature ?

Re: How might libertarians solve the Trolley Problem?

nirgrahamUK — Fri, 25 Jun 2010 20:45:52 GMT

what is this paper called? is it available online?

Re: How might libertarians solve the Trolley Problem?

Gene Callahan — Fri, 25 Jun 2010 20:42:31 GMT

"what scholarly literature had Rothbard written that Mises had read on the topic?"

Rothbard attended Mises' seminar EVERY SINGLE WEEK FOR YEARS. Are you suggesting Mises was unaware of Rothbard's views?

Re: How might libertarians solve the Trolley Problem?

Gene Callahan — Fri, 25 Jun 2010 20:40:54 GMT

"I am wrong because Machlup says so? are you lecturing us on cultism now?"

Yeah, I'm one of the two members of the "Machlup cult."

You are wrong because Machlup was right, not because "he said so." Read the %^$%#$@% paper, mi ceffo.

Re: How might libertarians solve the Trolley Problem?

nirgrahamUK — Fri, 25 Jun 2010 20:33:05 GMT

>>You are simply wrong. Read Fritz Machlup's paper on the misuse of the word 'methodology'. Just because some dictionary has endorsed a misuse does not now make it a proper use.

I am wrong because Machlup says so? are you lecturing us on cultism now?

Re: How might libertarians solve the Trolley Problem?

nirgrahamUK — Fri, 25 Jun 2010 20:26:59 GMT

what scholarly literature had Rothbard written that Mises had read on the topic? and where is this documented?

Re: How might libertarians solve the Trolley Problem?

Gene Callahan — Fri, 25 Jun 2010 20:26:58 GMT

"You are simply wrong,. look in a dictionary. "

You are simply wrong. Read Fritz Machlup's paper on the misuse of the word 'methodology'. Just because some dictionary has endorsed a misuse does not now make it a proper use.

Re: How might libertarians solve the Trolley Problem?

Gene Callahan — Fri, 25 Jun 2010 20:24:51 GMT

"Does anyone know what he is talking about Mises changing Human Action in response to Rothbard? Is that just a complete lie?"

Cult members are always so nasty when anyone challenges their cult dogma. IF I turned out to be wrong about this, it couldn't be that I am mistaken -- no, I must be LYING! Because, after all, I am an EVIL STATIST!

Check out the many additions Mises made between editions one and three laying out the many legitimate tasks of government. Now, who would it be, who Mises knew, who was denying those tasks were legitimate, and made Mises feel he had to add that defense? And why do you think the Mises Institute went back to edition one for their "scholar's" version? These were Mises own changes, and LVMI decided to try to blot them out of history! Why? Right in the intro it says "Because they were not for the better" (I quote from memory).

The maintenance of a govern- ment apparatus of courts, police officers, prison, and of armed forces requires considerable expenditure. To levy taxes for these purposes is fully compatible with the freedom the individual enjoys in a free market economy" (third ed., p. 282).

Also, these later editions substantially alter the definition of free- dom itself. In the original,Mises states: "Aman is free as far as he can live and get on without being at the mercy of arbitrary decisions on the

part of other people" (p. 279). Mises does not define "arbitrary," but he appearsto have in mind actions that infringe on someone'sperson or property without his agreement. Revised editions, in contrast, state: "we may define freedom as that state of affairs in which the individual's decision to choose is not constrained by governmental violence beyond the margin which the praxeological law restricts it anyway" (third ed., p. 282). T h e phrase "praxeologicallaw" (meaning the law of cause and effect in human affairs) works here as qualifier; it is so 'expansively applied that any government activity, however arbitrary, that is said to preserve or achieve "freedom" might be deemedpermissible.Theoriginaldefinition,morespecificandsmn- gent, rules out arbitraryinterventionsaltogether.

Re: How might libertarians solve the Trolley Problem?

nirgrahamUK — Fri, 25 Jun 2010 20:03:28 GMT

You are simply wrong,. look in a dictionary. As i refer to not only the methods themselves but also to meta issues concerning them my use of methodology is entirely appropriate.

>>I remember how in Middle School I used to act like this.

so you have lost your short term memory and now only have your long term memory? my grandma is like that bless her.

Re: How might libertarians solve the Trolley Problem?

Gene Callahan — Fri, 25 Jun 2010 20:01:18 GMT

"What can never be done is to reduce what has had to be learned in order to excel at such a type of [concrete] activity to the application of rules. There will of course at any particular stage in the historical development of such a form of activity be a stock of maxims which are used to characterize what is taken at that stage to be the best practice so far. But knowing how to apply these maxims is itself a capacity which cannot be specified by further rules, and the greatest achievements in each area at each stage always exhibit a freedom to violate the present established maxims, so that achievement proceeds both by rule-keeping and by rule-breaking. And there are never any rules to prescribe when it is the one rather than the other that we must do if we are to pursue excellence." -- Alasdair MacIntyre

Re: How might libertarians solve the Trolley Problem?

Gene Callahan — Fri, 25 Jun 2010 19:59:56 GMT

"Methodology is a system of methods and principles for doing something..."

No, methodology is the study of such systems of methods.

"you have lowered the force of your claims to so much whining."

I remember how in Middle School I used to act like this.

In any case, I just popped in to post a nice quote -- next post.

Re: How might libertarians solve the Trolley Problem?

nirgrahamUK — Thu, 24 Jun 2010 21:40:53 GMT

>>I think you mean "method" not "methodology.

Methodology is a system of methods and principles for doing something... so....

>>if by that you mean makes them capable of deductive certainty

I didn't mean that.

>>consider whether there is a "rigorous method" for deciding what is the right thing is to say in a conversation

One can judge better or worse methods at least when in respect of definite aims. For reference see psychology and the science of communication if you need help with methods of effective conversation.

At least we have got to the point where you have lowered the force of your claims to so much whining. You call someone a moral coward, so what, I can call you a moral monster (or anything)... so where does this get us?