What is the argument about? The applicability of a metaphor?
Yes, in regards to an outlook for sociology, history, and psychology. That is what I am discussing. I suppose as more of a bad way to view those subjects in light of the metaphor, than the metaphor as a metaphor unto itself. Good question.
It's as I said filc, my point were in varying generality, I think some were pretty specific to the video, others less so. Apologies if that's not what the type of discussion you intended to generate when you started the topic, I didn't mean to drag things off course, but that's just the way these things work I guess. Let me repeat myself, if you have any specific concerns about any of the points I raised relating to the video, feel free to ask for clarification, if you don't feel like doing so, by all means don't.
Sieben, I understand your position and thank you for the clarifications.
William, I think you nailed two of the points I was trying to make.
Caleb, then please, do myself (and apparently everybody else) a favor and begin leading by example.
That is what I am discussing. I suppose as more of a bad way to view those subjects in light of the metaphor, than the metaphor as a metaphor unto itself.
Trying to explain anything with metaphors without a literal version is a bad idea.
As i read it, it was not a metaphore for history, sociology, and society but a metaphore of the state and its nature. The State, being of a more concrete nature, as an actual existing organization. As such, it is not a metaphore of a metaphore. Though I may be misunderstanding you.
I know this happened a few days ago, but I couldn't pass it up:
Edmund Carlyle: filc:If an exchange occured voluntarily, it doesn't follow that any external social norms were required or even involved. You're totally missing the point, that it is only 'voluntary' insofar as we ignore the fact that I am too weak or afraid to just take what you have.
filc:If an exchange occured voluntarily, it doesn't follow that any external social norms were required or even involved.
You're totally missing the point, that it is only 'voluntary' insofar as we ignore the fact that I am too weak or afraid to just take what you have.
Here we get to the heart of the dispute. Filc accounts for morality. Edmund Carlyle does not. He prefers the Hobbesian "war of all against all".
So to Edmund Carlyle, I must ask: why do you discount morality? Can you prove it doesn't exist (i.e. in people's minds)?
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
EconomistInTraining:Stefan Molyneux is both completely nuts and seriously obnoxious.
Irrelevant (non sequitur), ad hominem, bare assertion.
EconomistInTraining:Stefan Molyneux doesn't understand the distinction between normative and positive statements. As a positive matter, it may well be untrue that states arose to serve us, it doesn't mean that there isn't some normative justification for their existence in terms of welfare maximisation or something along those lines.
The existence of any normative justification does not mean said justification must therefore be followed by everyone.
EconomistInTraining:As a positive matter, he implies that states only existed after the neolithic revolution since there could be no excess production. The latter statement is ambiguous and somewhat ridiculous and as a matter of fact some form of governance did exist prior to the neolithic revolution.
Define "governance". Then support the "matter of fact".
EconomistInTraining:Stefan Molyneux should learn what methodological means, it means some discussion pertaining to method.
Perhaps you'd like to note where he uses the term "erroneously".
Also, "methodological" is an adjective, grammatically speaking. That means it cannot be defined as a noun, such as "discussion". So I suggest you review the commonly accepted definition of "methodology". (I say "commonly accepted definition" because all definitions are inherently arbitrary.)
EconomistInTraining:Stefan Molyneux would do well to acquaint himself with Malthus, at least as a description of pre-industrial society.
Can you support this?
EconomistInTraining:His account of the industrial revolution is somewhat wrong. In particular, people did not move to cities because they were displaced but voluntarily; there was mass migration towards the cities and it was only this that could keep population rates from plummeting due to the exceedingly high death rates. Institutional factors cannot explain the entirety of the industrial revolution, granted, it occured first in a liberal Britain but it also followed in other less liberal regimes. Moreover, it's not entirely certain that institutions were far more liberal after the industrial revolution than before it.
What's your definition of "industrial revolution"?
EconomistInTraining:What about the huge demographic transition that accounts for the standard of living (although, some have suggested that the Malthusian story fits pre-industrial society worse than is commonly believed).
What "huge demographic transition" are you talking about? I'm not trying to say there was none; I'm merely asking for you to back up your bare assertions.
EcnomistInTraining:Intellectuals aren't all that well paid in all parts of the world. In fact, it's only in the US that intellectuals are really paid well. (And artists and priests well paid? You've got to be kidding me).
Do you really think he was talking about intellectuals across the board? Somehow I doubt he was. Perhaps you realize this and are simply trying to make Molyneux look dumber by implicitly using different semantics from his. This is known as intellectual dishonesty.
EconomistInTraining:Doesn't his argument prove too much? If liberties were gained from the industrial revolution only because it lead to greater living standards for the "farmers" why wouldn't we have more liberties today. At the very least, there are various regulations that seem to slow down economic growth without benefiting the "farmers"
I agree with you that the reasoning does seem to be flawed here.
EconomistInTraining:Scientific advances explain the vast majority of growth throughout history, with saving rates playing their part. Once again, Molyneux should do his homework.
Sorry, I wasn't aware that the rest of us are all supposed to be content in watching you pat yourself on the back, over and over.
In other words, you're making statements that rely on implicit information that you yourself are aware of, but that the rest of us may not be. So what are your real intentions here?
EconomistInTraining:Since when do the general population think they're owned?
Depends on the definition of "owned" being used, doesn't it?
EconomistInTraining:Superstitions, patriotism, enemies have existed for a long time, since long before "state capitalism" and "free range farms", so his facts are somewhat off.
Depends on how one defines both "state capitalism" and "free range farms". Of course, it goes without saying that the concept of "enemy" predates Homo sapiens sapiens.
EconomistInTraining:If liberties are solely a function of profitability for governments, and governments everywhere wish to maximise profits, why don't all governments employ the same "livestock managment techniques"? Namely those that maximise their profits.
Profits are ultimately subjective because values are subjective. Not saying you're wrong here, just offering food for thought.
EconomistInTraining:"A serf is most productive when he believes he is free". Is there any evidence to support this assertion?
Do you need evidence? Wouldn't you be more productive as a serf if you believed you weren't one?
EconomistInTraining:Libertarianism is also an ideology.
So is pragmatism.
EconomistInTraining:"Pimped-out"
Why are you taking exception to this, exactly? Or are we all supposed to be able to read your mind?
EconomistInTraining:Stefan Molyneux exemplifies everything bad about libertarianism. There's poor psychology, factual inaccuracies, arbitrary definitions, nutty conspiracism and often a poor theoretical basis.
Yet you have, by and large, failed to support the alleged poorness of his arguments and positions with either logic or evidence. Again, are you expecting us to read your mind and read between the lines? Or is this just an ego-stroke for yourself? If the latter, why bother to do it in front of us?
Autolykos:Here we get to the heart of the dispute. Filc accounts for morality. Edmund Carlyle does not. He prefers the Hobbesian "war of all against all".
My problem with this argument is that it's just a simple assertion, with very little backing in reason. An assertion that basically states that all men are inherently violent beings. They are anti-social, as opposed to social.
The assumption is that people voluntarily trade because they are too scared to risk coercion. My assumption on the other hand has been that people in general recognize the benefits of mutual-cooperation. There is no proof or evidence that the assertion you presented is factual based, instead it's only an assumption regarding the subjective mindset of each trader. But there is no objective evidence otherwise. On the other hand there is economic incentive to avoid violence. So for me, to hear someone claim that all mutual trade occurs simply out of fear of taking a risk is just silly. I don't naively and incorrectly assume that all men are violent in nature.
Here are my reasons for being reasonable.
If Billy is built larger and more muscular then Bob, and Billy is in a position to extort from Bob with little effort, your assertion does not explain why Billy continues with mutual exchange with Bob. Even ignoring morality. There are more occasions where Billy and Bob continue along a long history of mutual exchange.
One reason might be that Billy recognizes that he is more wealthy in the long run by treating Bob respectfully and not destroying that relationship. If Billy tried to take advantage of Bob and steal from him, but Bob may be wise and never place himself in that situation again. As such Billy may never have the benefit from the mutual exchange ever again. Also Bob may move away, and Billy wouldn't even have anyone to steal from either. As such Billy is overall poorer.
When you consider the benefits of the division of labor, and comparative advantage, well then mutual exchange makes a lot more sense. If on the other hand you think every man has a predisposition to be violent, and is only benevolent because the state is keeping him in line. Well if you believe that, I could see why most economic teachings makes very little sense.
Thievery is a thing of time preference, not a thing of inherent human evilness(whatever that means).
I am not saying you believe these things Autolykos, just to those in general who try to present that argument. People like Bloom and Rettoper come ti mind.
Robert Murphy, in HA Study Guide:8. THE INSTINCT OF AGGRESSION AND DESTRUCTION Some writers extol the manly urges to kill and destroy that have allegedly been sapped by “unnatural” modern society. It may very well be that people thirst for bloodshed, but they also hunger for food and pang for fancy houses. Praxeology teaches that people must choose between these satisfactions.
There is a more detailed description in Chapter 8, in HA by Mises. Bob just gives us a nice summary.
Clayton -Well, perhaps such comparisons are not entirely misplaced. Just ask yourself: if we only knew that, say, 0.8% of the population will be ‘ranchers’ and the rest ‘cattle’, and we went around just randomly selecting that 0.8%, would that state survive? I believe it has everything to do with who is ruling, hence the distinction between rulers and ruled is not entirely unjustified.
I believe it has everything to do with who is ruling, hence the distinction between rulers and ruled is not entirely unjustified.
Well, a distinction is clearly justified - the ruling elites are the Kobe Bryants/Tiger Woods of war-making and rent-seeking. But all the same, the Prince is not to the masses as the rancher is to his cattle. Kobe Bryant is extraordinarily good at basketball and Tiger Woods is extraordinarily good at golf but I can still make a basket and whack a golf ball into a hole. The rent-seeking elites that comprise the kernel of the State do it better than anybody else but their perch is far from permanent (just look at the historical record, it is littered with the corpses of kings and emperors).
Clayton -
I see now that Autolykos's response was a clarification of Edmumds position. I understand you were not directing an argument at me. So my above post would be directed at Edmumds position.
Sorry for the confusion.
Oh, how I really didn't want it to get to this stage...
Actually, before you start the usual internet game of throwing around the names of various logical fallacies, you might want to make sure that you're doing it correctly.
From here: http://plover.net/~bonds/adhominem.html
One of the most widely misused terms on the Net is "ad hominem". It is most often introduced into a discussion by certain delicate types, delicate of personality and mind, whenever their opponents resort to a bit of sarcasm. As soon as the suspicion of an insult appears, they summon the angels of ad hominem to smite down their foes, before ascending to argument heaven in a blaze of sanctimonious glory. They may not have much up top, but by God, they don't need it when they've got ad hominem on their side. It's the secret weapon that delivers them from any argument unscathed. In reality, ad hominem is unrelated to sarcasm or personal abuse. Argumentum ad hominem is the logical fallacy of attempting to undermine a speaker's argument by attacking the speaker instead of addressing the argument. The mere presence of a personal attack does not indicate ad hominem: the attack must be used for the purpose of undermining the argument, or otherwise the logical fallacy isn't there. It is not a logical fallacy to attack someone; the fallacy comes from assuming that a personal attack is also necessarily an attack on that person's arguments.
In reality, ad hominem is unrelated to sarcasm or personal abuse. Argumentum ad hominem is the logical fallacy of attempting to undermine a speaker's argument by attacking the speaker instead of addressing the argument. The mere presence of a personal attack does not indicate ad hominem: the attack must be used for the purpose of undermining the argument, or otherwise the logical fallacy isn't there. It is not a logical fallacy to attack someone; the fallacy comes from assuming that a personal attack is also necessarily an attack on that person's arguments.
My opening line was just my expression of a personal opinion on the guy, I think he's a little crazy and can come across as obnoxious in his videos and his online posting. Perhaps you disagree, that's fine, but please stop trying to invoke logical fallacies that aren't really there in order to undermine my status/ credibility.
The existence of any normative justification does not mean said justification must therefore be followed by everyone
Well, that's quite obvious. But it's also besides the point which is something I've already clarified, namely, even if we grant the validity of SM's grand theory of history, that doesn't mean some form of government isn't welfare maximising or necessary for society. Like I said, as a matter of fact SM could be right (I don't think he is) when he claims that the state is run by some small group of elites who dominate the population, doesn't mean we don't benefit from it anyway.
Once again, this is a really simple point, and actually one I'd like to think most libertarians would agree with. As a "matter of fact" coercion (in the libertarian sense of the word) was around for a long time before the neolithic revolution. It's a mistake to think that tribal societies were in any way libertarian, they were fairly communistic.
Perhaps you'd like to note where he uses the term "erroneously". Also, "methodological" is an adjective, grammatically speaking. That means it cannot be defined as a noun, such as "discussion". So I suggest you review the commonly accepted definition of "methodology". (I say "commonly accepted definition" because all definitions are inherently arbitrary.)
This was really just a minor nit-pick that you've decided to pick up on for some reason.
From the American Heritage Dictionary quote here: http://organizationsandmarkets.com/2007/04/07/method-versus-methodology/
In recent years . . . “methodology” has been increasingly used as a pretentious substitute for “method” in scientific and technical contexts, as in “The oil company has not yet decided on a methodology for restoring the beaches.” This usage may have been fostered in part by the tendency to use the adjective “methodological” to mean “pertaining to methods,” inasmuch as the regularly formed adjective “methodical” has been preempted to mean “orderly, systematic.” But the misuse of methodology obscures an important conceptual distinction between the tools of scientific investigation (properly “methods”) and the principles that determine how such tools are deployed and interpreted — a distinction that the scientific and scholarly communities, if not the wider public, should be expected to maintain.
Can I literally support the argument "it is in SM's interest to acquaint himself with Malthus?" I doubt it. But I do think that if he's making sweeping claims about economic history he should address one of the standard theories in the field, yes. By which I mean, he attributes lower standards of living in the pre-industrial world to poor "livestock management techniques", when there's a great deal of (disputed) evidence that actually lack of population control was the cause of poor living standards, any increases in productivity were quickly negated up by increases in population. By the way, when I say disputed, it's actually pretty generally accepted that Malthusian forces were the cause of a lot of stagnation in living standards, the question is whether they suffice to explain it.
SM's theory just doesn't fit the facts as well as many other arguments do.
Well, I suppose I'd go somewhere along these lines, here's an except from Tyler Cowen's review of Gregory Clark's Farewell to Alms (found here:http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/02/business/02scene.html?ex=1320123600&en=45c0cd3f64070ad2&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss)
The turning point came when England, and some other parts of Europe, managed a small but persistently positive rate of growth, starting around the 17th century. Pro-business values spread through English society. The Industrial Revolution was not so much a revolution as a continual building of small improvements, and indeed its history shows the difficulty of achieving regular growth. The explosion of technology came only in the late 19th century, well after many incremental gains.
Bold is mine.
Here's Greoory Clark: http://www.cepr.org/meets/wkcn/1/1679/papers/Alter-Clark_Chapter.pdf
In 1700 four features characterized all European societies: high fertility, modest levels of education, the dominance of physical over human capital, and low rates of economic growth. By 1870 in much of Europe modern economic growth was underway, fertility levels had begun their decline to modern levels, education levels were rising, and human capital was becoming an important a source of income.
By the way, these "bare assertions" of mine aren't bare assertions. I'm actually just referring to generally accepted historical facts, I can't help but feel that once again, you're nitpicking to undermine my credibility, the fact that you go on to accuse me of intellectual dishonesty is laughable.
I'm not trying to make Molyneux look dumber, to the extent that this issue actually matters to me it's because of personal reasons that I mentioned above (my father is a PhD economist, and quite frankly I don't think he's a shill for the state). More importantly, it's just an inaccuracy in SM's video, which was posted here to generate discussion (although, I'm beginning to feel that it was posted here to generate agreement.)
If SM did not mean intellectuals across the board, then it's his job to clarify what he means. But two things thought come to my mind right now, SM has been highly critical of even the most ardent libertarian intellectuals (Rothbard, Mises and Hoppe) and that the reality is very far away from being intellectuals across the board. To the extent that his argument applies, a few conditions need to hold a) the academics in question need to make arguments in favor of expanding the state (rules out almost all natural scientists, a whole lot of economists and a number of other intellectuals in other social sciences) b) they need to be well paid relative to their investment in human capital and to the opportunity cost of working in the private sector (rules out almost all but the top sociologists and political scientists, and a significant quantity of economists) and c) their opinion or academic work needs to have some sway with the public (rules out almost all economists, after all, how many lay people justify QE with DSGE?).
So yeah, actually, SM's argument fits the facts pretty poorly. Just seems like something of a smear to me since out of all economists I can think of the above three conditions only hold for Krugman and DeLong.
Sorry, I wasn't aware that the rest of us are all supposed to be content in watching you pat yourself on the back, over and over. In other words, you're making statements that rely on implicit information that you yourself are aware of, but that the rest of us may not be. So what are your real intentions here?
Maybe I was patting myself on the back, I doubt it though, since I went on to admit that I was probably being a little pedantic in the next post.
But my real intentions? Probably to signal that I'm intelligent and well read, but in that case I'm not too differently from most human beings, we all do it to some extent without realising. More seriously, if SM wants to attribute all economic growth (which now I'm not sure he was) to entrepreneurs, that's fine. But there's a whole lot of economics that says he's wrong, which is what I meant by "I think he should do his homework".
Absolutely, all the more reason that SM should a) be clear about his definitions, b) try and find some justification for that definition and c) should try and find empirical evidence that the general population think they're owned according to his definition.
Which is exactly my point and my complaint, there's lot of armchair psychology and sweeping statements in the video, very little scientific reasoning.
Once again, I agree, and this issue came up earlier when I said that academics do have a good life insofar as they're allowed to do what they presumably enjoy, research. But I think if we're going to make significant claims about how some monolithic state is controlling the population for their own personal benefit we should be explicit about what these values are, we can't get it 100% correct but maybe we can determine the importance of values such as preservation of custom, fairness, equality, comfort, religious concerns etc.
I don't necessarily deny that politicians are generally self interested, I just don't think that government is nearly as monolithic as SM claims, policy is generally the result of different competing interests whether they be voters, bureaucrats, elected officials or lobbyists. Each of these different groups have different allocation of resources and preferences and even politicians may value equality, fairness and the like.
So as I said, it's important to be explicit about what we believe the value system of governments to look like, so we can check it against the facts. Because the theory of "government" being some profit maximise is both kinda nonsensical and empirically wrong.
I addressed this earlier, I wouldn't be surprised if SM was correct here, and I wouldn't be surprised if there was some literature that exists that documents it. But until I'm presented with this evidence I feel more comfortable explaining these facts in terms of economic arguments about incentives and the like.
Possibly, I don't want to argue this point. But either way, if libertarianism is an ideology, it makes no sense to define it as a synonym for philosophy and an antonym for ideology. Which was my original point, a lot of the definitions he uses are really arbitrary and not commonly used by others in that sense. More generally, I think this is a problem with libertarianism (and I mean this as a suggestion, not a criticism), a lot of definitions are used in senses that may be historically accurate but certainly aren't used that way in contemporary discourse.
I just found it amusing actually, nothing else. I found it kind of similar to when my middle aged male micro teacher decided to make a joke about "kinky preferences" to a class of twenty something year old undergrads.
Yet you have, by and large, failed to support the alleged poorness of his arguments and positions with either logic or evidence
Well, I hope I've done more to that end in this post (and other subsequent posts). I think there's actually common ground here on the two most substantive points, maybe I'm wrong, but either way I think we'd both benefit if you were a little more receptive to what I had to say.
The fact that that the absoluteness of states are farms made for extracting wealth from their generators is so strictly true, and so well agreed upon by libertarians, actually implies the inherent failure of anarcho-capitalism. You see, it is the same thing as complaining about god being our supreme unjustified overlord, and using that as an appeal to attempt to abolish god. Well guess what, it is impossible. Gods(state's) power is strictly true, if the concept of absolute power(state power) is accepted as a premise in the first place. So instead, the anarchist line consistent with realist perception of the state, would be to claim the state to not be this supreme organisation with a concrete end, organised at attaining it, but a mishmash of anarchy instead.
xarthaz:The fact that that the absoluteness of states are farms made for extracting wealth from their generators is so strictly true, and so well agreed upon by libertarians, actually implies the inherent failure of anarcho-capitalism.
This doesn't make sense can you elaborate without committing a logical fallacy? The statement above does not follow.
I'm not arguing that Ancap has been proven to work, has been disproven, or even does work. I'm just pointing out that your argument doesn't follow logically.
The other problem with your argument is the incomparability of the two. God and the state are different. One is metaphysical, the other is not. One you have a choice to follow, the other you do not. So it's unclear what your trying to accomplish here.
Cool non sequitur bro!
xarthaz:So instead, the anarchist line consistent with realist perception of the state, would be to claim the state to not be this supreme organisation with a concrete end, organised at attaining it, but a mishmash of anarchy instead.
If this thread has demonstrated anything, it is that very few anarchists actually understand the nature of the state. Lumping them all together is erroneous.
The common thing a
Sorry for dud-posts.. Lacking Opera support. The Molyneux-ist appeal to absoluteness of state is the mental creation of a rule set: the set of rulers, and set of ruled. That very assumption, the premise of such groups existing, implies impossibility of anarchism. Claiming otherwise would be same as the socialist utopians - that the social hierarchal premises are subject to alteration.
>>That very assumption, the premise of such groups existing, implies impossibility of anarchism.
The recognition of the existence of something is not an argument for its eternal existence.
check yourself before you wreck yourself.
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
chiggity check
EconomistInTraining:Oh, how I really didn't want it to get to this stage...
Oh, you mean you didn't want anything you wrote in that initial post to be challenged by anyone? So sorry.
EconomistInTraining:Actually, before you start the usual internet game of throwing around the names of various logical fallacies, you might want to make sure that you're doing it correctly. From here: http://plover.net/~bonds/adhominem.html One of the most widely misused terms on the Net is "ad hominem". It is most often introduced into a discussion by certain delicate types, delicate of personality and mind, whenever their opponents resort to a bit of sarcasm. As soon as the suspicion of an insult appears, they summon the angels of ad hominem to smite down their foes, before ascending to argument heaven in a blaze of sanctimonious glory. They may not have much up top, but by God, they don't need it when they've got ad hominem on their side. It's the secret weapon that delivers them from any argument unscathed. In reality, ad hominem is unrelated to sarcasm or personal abuse. Argumentum ad hominem is the logical fallacy of attempting to undermine a speaker's argument by attacking the speaker instead of addressing the argument. The mere presence of a personal attack does not indicate ad hominem: the attack must be used for the purpose of undermining the argument, or otherwise the logical fallacy isn't there. It is not a logical fallacy to attack someone; the fallacy comes from assuming that a personal attack is also necessarily an attack on that person's arguments. My opening line was just my expression of a personal opinion on the guy, I think he's a little crazy and can come across as obnoxious in his videos and his online posting. Perhaps you disagree, that's fine, but please stop trying to invoke logical fallacies that aren't really there in order to undermine my status/ credibility.
I see. So you weren't actually making an argument here. You just wanted to offer a purely emotional statement. Am I right?
Well, sorry, but I figured you were actually trying to argue stuff, like everyone else in this thread is (or seems to be). Perhaps you'd do well to warn us the next time you want to debate-but-not-debate.
In other words, yes I did think the logical fallacy was actually there. Now you imply that I'm either being stupid or "delicate" in calling you out on it. You are compounding the problem.
EconomistInTraining:Well, that's quite obvious. But it's also besides the point which is something I've already clarified, namely, even if we grant the validity of SM's grand theory of history, that doesn't mean some form of government isn't welfare maximising or necessary for society. Like I said, as a matter of fact SM could be right (I don't think he is) when he claims that the state is run by some small group of elites who dominate the population, doesn't mean we don't benefit from it anyway.
Are you implying that some form of government is welfare-maximizing or necessary for society? Because if you are, I'll just point back to my earlier statement. If it's as obvious as you say it is, you should have no problem distinguishing positive from normative statements. There's also that little is-ought problem to contend with.
EconomistInTraining:Once again, this is a really simple point, and actually one I'd like to think most libertarians would agree with. As a "matter of fact" coercion (in the libertarian sense of the word) was around for a long time before the neolithic revolution. It's a mistake to think that tribal societies were in any way libertarian, they were fairly communistic.
I couldn't care less whether "most libertarians" agree with what ever "really simple" point you're making (or claiming to make). Get it? Otherwise it seems you're subtly trying to appeal to the majority and arguing ad hominem at the same time (i.e. "Most other libertarians get it, so why can't you, hmm?").
With that said, you have yet to explicitly provide your definition of "governance". Once again, definitions are inherently arbitrary. I'd like to know whatever definition you're using.
EconomistInTraining:This was really just a minor nit-pick that you've decided to pick up on for some reason. From the American Heritage Dictionary quote here: http://organizationsandmarkets.com/2007/04/07/method-versus-methodology/
I couldn't care less whether you think it's "really just a minor nit-pick". You defined "methodological", an adjective, as if it were a noun. That's grammatically incorrect and therefore your whole point is invalidated.
EconomistInTraining:Can I literally support the argument "it is in SM's interest to acquaint himself with Malthus?" I doubt it.
Then perhaps you should make a better (read: actually valid) argument.
EconomistInTraining:But I do think that if he's making sweeping claims about economic history he should address one of the standard theories in the field, yes. By which I mean, he attributes lower standards of living in the pre-industrial world to poor "livestock management techniques", when there's a great deal of (disputed) evidence that actually lack of population control was the cause of poor living standards, any increases in productivity were quickly negated up by increases in population. By the way, when I say disputed, it's actually pretty generally accepted that Malthusian forces were the cause of a lot of stagnation in living standards, the question is whether they suffice to explain it
So can you provide such evidence or not? "Actually pretty generally accepted" means nothing to me here.
EconomistInTraining:SM's theory just doesn't fit the facts as well as many other arguments do.
I don't know what (all of) the "facts" are here, whether they're what you're claiming as facts or the actual facts (whatever they may be). And no, I'm not going to take your bare assertions on faith because you happen to be an economist in training.
EconomistInTraining:Well, I suppose I'd go somewhere along these lines, here's an except from Tyler Cowen's review of Gregory Clark's Farewell to Alms (found here:http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/02/business/02scene.html?ex=1320123600&en=45c0cd3f64070ad2&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss) The turning point came when England, and some other parts of Europe, managed a small but persistently positive rate of growth, starting around the 17th century. Pro-business values spread through English society. The Industrial Revolution was not so much a revolution as a continual building of small improvements, and indeed its history shows the difficulty of achieving regular growth. The explosion of technology came only in the late 19th century, well after many incremental gains. Bold is mine.
"Somewhere along these lines"? Can you commit to a definition or not? We can't have you equivocating all over the place, now can we?
The definition you seem to be wavering on, namely "a small but persistently positive rate of [economic?] growth starting around the 17th century", says nothing about the cause of such growth. Does that not matter to you? Otherwise, I'm not sure what besides point-in-time distinguishes the "Industrial Revolution" from any other period(s) of small but persistently positive rate of [economic?] growth.
EconomistInTraining:Here's Greoory Clark: http://www.cepr.org/meets/wkcn/1/1679/papers/Alter-Clark_Chapter.pdf In 1700 four features characterized all European societies: high fertility, modest levels of education, the dominance of physical over human capital, and low rates of economic growth. By 1870 in much of Europe modern economic growth was underway, fertility levels had begun their decline to modern levels, education levels were rising, and human capital was becoming an important a source of income.
So the "huge demographic transition" you're talking about is going from the characteristics of European societies in 1700 to their characteristics in 1870? And what caused this "huge demographic transition"? Or does that not matter once again (i.e. it's all about missing the forest for the trees)?
EconomistInTraining:By the way, these "bare assertions" of mine aren't bare assertions. I'm actually just referring to generally accepted historical facts, I can't help but feel that once again, you're nitpicking to undermine my credibility, the fact that you go on to accuse me of intellectual dishonesty is laughable.
What you consider to be "generally accepted", historical "facts" or otherwise, has no affect on me whatsoever. I will continue to "nitpick" as I deem necessary.
EconomistInTraining:I'm not trying to make Molyneux look dumber, to the extent that this issue actually matters to me it's because of personal reasons that I mentioned above (my father is a PhD economist, and quite frankly I don't think he's a shill for the state). More importantly, it's just an inaccuracy in SM's video, which was posted here to generate discussion (although, I'm beginning to feel that it was posted here to generate agreement.) If SM did not mean intellectuals across the board, then it's his job to clarify what he means. But two things thought come to my mind right now, SM has been highly critical of even the most ardent libertarian intellectuals (Rothbard, Mises and Hoppe) and that the reality is very far away from being intellectuals across the board. To the extent that his argument applies, a few conditions need to hold a) the academics in question need to make arguments in favor of expanding the state (rules out almost all natural scientists, a whole lot of economists and a number of other intellectuals in other social sciences) b) they need to be well paid relative to their investment in human capital and to the opportunity cost of working in the private sector (rules out almost all but the top sociologists and political scientists, and a significant quantity of economists) and c) their opinion or academic work needs to have some sway with the public (rules out almost all economists, after all, how many lay people justify QE with DSGE?). So yeah, actually, SM's argument fits the facts pretty poorly. Just seems like something of a smear to me since out of all economists I can think of the above three conditions only hold for Krugman and DeLong.
Can you support the claim that "almost all" natural scientists don't make arguments in favor of expanding the state? To say nothing of "a whole lot of" economists and "a number of" other intellectuals in other social scientists.
Can you explain what you mean by "well paid relative to their investment in human capital and to the opportunity cost of working in the private sector"? Note that here you'll have to explain what (you think) is their investment in human capital and also the opportunity cost of working in the private sector.
Can you explain what you mean by "have some sway with the public"?
Until you provide further explanation here, I (personally) remain skeptical that Molyneux was necessarily smearing intellectuals as a "class".
EconomistInTraining:Maybe I was patting myself on the back, I doubt it though, since I went on to admit that I was probably being a little pedantic in the next post.
Maybe, but you doubt it? Make up your mind. Either you were or you weren't. Which is it?
EconomistInTraining:But my real intentions? Probably to signal that I'm intelligent and well read, but in that case I'm not too differently from most human beings, we all do it to some extent without realising. More seriously, if SM wants to attribute all economic growth (which now I'm not sure he was) to entrepreneurs, that's fine. But there's a whole lot of economics that says he's wrong, which is what I meant by "I think he should do his homework".
Signal to whom, pray tell?
Just because "a whole lot of economics" says he's wrong doesn't mean he is wrong, does it?
EconomistInTraining:Absolutely, all the more reason that SM should a) be clear about his definitions, b) try and find some justification for that definition and c) should try and find empirical evidence that the general population think they're owned according to his definition. Which is exactly my point and my complaint, there's lot of armchair psychology and sweeping statements in the video, very little scientific reasoning.
I agree that he should be clear about his definitions and that he should try to find empirical evidence to support his claims based on those definitions. However, definitions need not be justified, as they're inherently arbitrary.
EconomistInTraining:Once again, I agree, and this issue came up earlier when I said that academics do have a good life insofar as they're allowed to do what they presumably enjoy, research. But I think if we're going to make significant claims about how some monolithic state is controlling the population for their own personal benefit we should be explicit about what these values are, we can't get it 100% correct but maybe we can determine the importance of values such as preservation of custom, fairness, equality, comfort, religious concerns etc.
Importance of such values to whom, exactly? My point was that different values can lead to different "livestock management methods", if you will.
Wait, I think I get it. You're saying that it's more useful to be explicit about what those values are and how they differ. Am I right? If so, I would agree.
EconomistInTraining:I don't necessarily deny that politicians are generally self interested, I just don't think that government is nearly as monolithic as SM claims, policy is generally the result of different competing interests whether they be voters, bureaucrats, elected officials or lobbyists. Each of these different groups have different allocation of resources and preferences and even politicians may value equality, fairness and the like. So as I said, it's important to be explicit about what we believe the value system of governments to look like, so we can check it against the facts. Because the theory of "government" being some profit maximise is both kinda nonsensical and empirically wrong.
Of course, the government isn't a monolith. It consists of millions of individuals. However, they're not all equal in terms of authority within the government. As with any other hierarchical organization, most of them have little authority, and a few have a lot. It seems more useful, then, to pay more attention to motivations and values of the few at/near the top than all of the "worker bees" at/near the bottom.
One rule of government policy-setting seems to be getting/doing the most you can with the least amount of effort. In the political arena, "effort" includes resistance on the part of those being taxed. Does that make sense?
EconomistInTraining:I addressed this earlier, I wouldn't be surprised if SM was correct here, and I wouldn't be surprised if there was some literature that exists that documents it. But until I'm presented with this evidence I feel more comfortable explaining these facts in terms of economic arguments about incentives and the like.
I guess I'm kinda baffled as to why you'd need evidence for this. Because to me it seems self-explanatory.
EconomistInTraining:Possibly, I don't want to argue this point.
Too late. Can you provide any reasoning or evidence that proves or demonstrates that pragmatism cannot be an ideology?
EconomistInTraining:But either way, if libertarianism is an ideology, it makes no sense to define it as a synonym for philosophy and an antonym for ideology. Which was my original point, a lot of the definitions he uses are really arbitrary and not commonly used by others in that sense. More generally, I think this is a problem with libertarianism (and I mean this as a suggestion, not a criticism), a lot of definitions are used in senses that may be historically accurate but certainly aren't used that way in contemporary discourse.
Well here I differ from Molyneux, as it seems to me that philosophy itself is ideology.
Again, definitions are all arbitrary. Just because one's definitions aren't commonly used by others doesn't mean they can't be used.
I do agree, however, that it's useful to understand the evolution of semantics over time. For example, I recently investigated an alternative definition of "government", one that seems more widely used than the typical libertarian definition. Neither definition is correct, of course, but I found that, under the more "popular" definition of "government", anarcho-capitalists aren't anti-government at all!
EconomistInTraining:I just found it amusing actually, nothing else. I found it kind of similar to when my middle aged male micro teacher decided to make a joke about "kinky preferences" to a class of twenty something year old undergrads.
I see. So it wasn't a point against him or anything.
EconomistInTraining:Well, I hope I've done more to that end in this post (and other subsequent posts). I think there's actually common ground here on the two most substantive points, maybe I'm wrong, but either way I think we'd both benefit if you were a little more receptive to what I had to say.
Well, to be perfectly honest, I'd be more receptive if you weren't so snide and secretive about it.
You should have taken my advice from page two.
Caley, enough with the petty swipes.
No, it is too broad a term to be an ideology, it may state things ideologically (this is debatable), but it is not an ideology.
If someone was to state creationsim, communism, ancient space aliens, etc were true and then make a video based off of these assumptions, without arguing for or against them, and then proceed to frame things in such heterodox terms would you have a problem with it?
The fact is, it would be heterodox to picture primitive societies as libertarian the way the word is used here, or to assume that applying a psycho analysis of people throughout history under government had some relationship to cattle. The burden is on the heterodox thought, that is the way it works; the "State as farms" video did not meet the task to be taken as anything other than a propaganda video. It is a "hook" video, something to get one interested; an introduction to arguments maybe, but it argues nothing.
At best it can cause some personal insight of one's relationship of government to themselves today (much like reading a good poem); but it supplies no actual sociology, history, economics, or philosophy that can be spoken of (personally, I would even suggest that thinking of this video in such terms would lead to poor conclusions in each of those fields). This can clearly be shown by the plethora of value statements and weasel words thrown throughout the entire video.
Petty swipes? No. This is petty swipes.
William:No, ["philsophy"] is too broad a term to be an ideology, it may state things ideologically (this is debatable), but it is not an ideology.
How is it necessarily too broad a term? Or how is "ideology" too narrow a term?
Remember, all definitions are inherently arbitrary.
William:If someone was to state creationsim, communism, ancient space aliens, etc were true and then make a video based off of these assumptions, without arguing for or against them, and then proceed to frame things in such heterodox terms would you have a problem with it?
Depends on what you mean by "have a problem with it". Also, what do you mean by "heterodox"?
William:The fact is, it would be heterodox to picture primitive societies as libertarian the way the word is used here, or to assume that applying a psycho analysis of people throughout history under government had some relationship to cattle. The burden is on the heterodox thought, that is the way it works; the "State as farms" video did not meet the task to be taken as anything other than a propaganda video. It is a "hook" video, something to get one interested; an introduction to arguments maybe, but it argues nothing.
So what if it's "heterodox"? Can you even demonstrate how it must be?
It seems to me that this invocation of "heterodoxy" is just an argumentum ad populum.
Willilam:At best it can cause some personal insight of one's relationship of government to themselves today (much like reading a good poem); but it supplies no actual sociology, history, economics, or philosophy that can be spoken of (personally, I would even suggest that thinking of this video in such terms would lead to poor conclusions in each of those fields). This can clearly be shown by the plethora of value statements and weasel words thrown throughout the entire video.
How are you defining "actual sociology", "actual history", "actual economics", and "actual philosophy" in the above? Which parts of the video do you take to be "value statements" and/or "weasel words" (however you take those to mean)?
Let's get your attempts to reduce my status and credibility out of the way before we engage in anything substantive.
Yes, I think that's just about the only sensible conclusion one can draw from the opening line of my post. Any other possible interpretation of that line such as "I really didn't want this to get to the stage where we're quote bombing and one liner exchanges" would be far too charitable!
I don't think I've been secretive or snide about anything, actually, I'd like to think that just the opposite is true. My original post was a series of thoughts, in with no particular ordering, that came to me whilst watching the video in the OP, as we're on the internet there's always going to be some level of misunderstanding. But at every instance I've made it quite clear that I'm willing to spell out exactly what it is that I meant to anybody who misunderstands.
If that is snide or secretive than you and I must you using very different definitions.
I was offering my personal opinion of the guy, I think there's a commonly accepted definition of the word "nuts" that goes somewhere along the lines of "being detached from reality" and I think he fits it rather well. So, actually, it was a factual statement about the state of SM's mental health. That said, it wasn't related to the debate on other issues such as those brought up by SM in the video, so it doesn't fit the requirements for the ad hominem fallacy.
Well, sorry, but I figured you were actually trying to argue stuff, like everyone else in this thread is (or seems to be). Perhaps you'd do well to warn us the next time you want to debate-but-not-debate. In other words, yes I did think the logical fallacy was actually there. Now you imply that I'm either being stupid or "delicate" in calling you out on it. You are compounding the problem.
Because, nobody on this forum has ever expressed their opinion about the mental health, intelligence or motives of anybody these disagree with.
By the way, I posted the above passage because it did a nice job explaining how people commonly misuse the phrase "ad hominem", not because I wanted to call you "stupid" or "delicate", though, even if I did I wouldn't be committing the fallacy in question.
I think you're going to have to flesh this out, I'm not sure if I understand or if you've understand me. Although, yes I do believe that some form of government is welfare maximising and yes I do believe it is necessary for society, in a world where markets functioned perfectly I don't think we'd need government but markets can sometimes function very badly (an analogous case can be made for government, by the way). The above is a normative statement, the story SM tells about governments being full of bad people is a positive statement and the two don't necessarily contradict each other, that's all I was saying.
And no, there isn't an is-ought problem to contend with, if you'd read a welfare economics textbook you'd know that they explicitly start with a few normative principles of values and work from there, they don't ever try to derive "ought" statements from "is" statements.
"Somewhere along these lines"? Can you commit to a definition or not? We can't have you equivocating all over the place, now can we? The definition you seem to be wavering on, namely "a small but persistently positive rate of [economic?] growth starting around the 17th century", says nothing about the cause of such growth. Does that not matter to you? Otherwise, I'm not sure what besides point-in-time distinguishes the "Industrial Revolution" from any other period(s) of small but persistently positive rate of [economic?] growth.
The Industrial Revolution has been under interpretation for many a year now, with economic historians still disagreeing over it's exact causes and what it looked like. I'll agree to the above definition though because from my limited reading (a few books, a textbook and a few papers) it seems generally correct to me. But if you expect me to do what economic historians haven't been able to do, be prepared for disappointment.
Wow! You're not sure what makes the Industrial Revolution different from any other period of small but persistently positive rate of economic growth? I think it takes quite something to have a debate about economic history without knowing the basics are. What distinguishes it economically? The fact that it was the first time in the history of human civilization that we managed a sustained rate of growth and was a period during which many important technological innovations were made that laid the foundations for modern day growth in the western world.
As for causes, am I sold on a particular explanation, no. But there are a few that I find interesting, quoting Oded Galor:
During the Malthusian epoch technological progress permitted an increase in the size of the population, while population size affected the rate of technological progress. The size of the population determined the supply of, and demands for, ideas. It also influenced the diffusion of ideas, the degree of specialisation in the production process that stimulated ‘learning by doing’,11 and the level of international trade that further fostered technological progress. At the same time, the rate of technological progress and its effect on the resource constraint, enabled population growth. This inherent Malthusian positive feedback between the level of technology and the size of the population brought about a gradual acceleration in the pace of technological progress. Rapid technological progress, inevitably, raised the demand for human capital in the production process, in order to cope with the rapidly changing economic environment. The rise in the demand for human capital in the second phase of industrialization induced the formation of human capital, and led to a substitution, by parents, between the quality and quantity of children, triggering the onset of the demographic transition.12 It brought about significant technological advancements along with a reduction in fertility rates and population growth, enabling economies to convert a larger share of the fruits of factor accumulation and technological progress into growth of income per capita, which paved the way for the emergence of modern economic growth.
This inherent Malthusian positive feedback between the level of technology and the size of the population brought about a gradual acceleration in the pace of technological progress. Rapid technological progress, inevitably, raised the demand for human capital in the production process, in order to cope with the rapidly changing economic environment. The rise in the demand for human capital in the second phase of industrialization induced the formation of human capital, and led to a substitution, by parents, between the quality and quantity of children, triggering the onset of the demographic transition.12 It brought about significant technological advancements along with a reduction in fertility rates and population growth, enabling economies to convert a larger share of the fruits of factor accumulation and technological progress into growth of income per capita, which paved the way for the emergence of modern economic growth.
And here's Edward Glaeser summarizing other explanations
The market demand theory posits that it does not make sense to build factories that exploit returns to scale unless you have a lot of customers and large-scale suppliers. According to this view, growing globalization in the age of worldwide sailing and English investment in turnpikes and canals created the markets needed for the Industrial Revolution. Institutionalist economic historians emphasize rule of law and argue that there is little investment unless property is protected from despotic whim. This view suggests that the Glorious Revolution laid the ground for the Industrial Revolution by giving England constitutional monarchs. Those who hold the third conventional view, the human capital explanation, argue that the spread of literacy and learning yielded entrepreneurs capable of producing the ideas that made us rich. According to this twist on Weber, the Protestant Reformation was important because it supported literacy. (An aggressive variant of this hypothesis suggests that the spread of education also enabled the collective action that gave us democracy.)
Institutionalist economic historians emphasize rule of law and argue that there is little investment unless property is protected from despotic whim. This view suggests that the Glorious Revolution laid the ground for the Industrial Revolution by giving England constitutional monarchs.
Those who hold the third conventional view, the human capital explanation, argue that the spread of literacy and learning yielded entrepreneurs capable of producing the ideas that made us rich. According to this twist on Weber, the Protestant Reformation was important because it supported literacy. (An aggressive variant of this hypothesis suggests that the spread of education also enabled the collective action that gave us democracy.)
And again this time focusing on Gregory Clark's explanation:
Mr. Clark is unconvinced by these theories. He argues correctly that England wasn't the only place in the world with secure property rights, literacy, or large markets. He then provides us with a new hypothesis based on natural selection that is both bold and highly debatable. Mr. Clark documents that wealthier Englishmen had more children for many centuries before the Industrial Revolution. He then argues that the positive genetic attributes of wealthy Englishmen, such as patience, spread throughout the population by natural selection. In this view, human capital was responsible for the Industrial Revolution, but the relevant human capital was a product of genes and not schoolbooks. This is quite flattering to the tens of millions of Americans whose proximate middle-class ancestors had more elite English antecedents, but that alone doesn't make it a good theory of the Industrial Revolution. While Mr. Clark documents that richer Englishmen had more kids, the same process was surely going on in much of the world. Indeed, the connection between wealth and progeny is generally much stronger in polygamous countries, like those in the Muslim world, which didn't make the same leap towards industrialization and widespread prosperity. Furthermore, I am also unconvinced that England's medieval elite of Norman barons were well endowed with crucial commercial virtues such as patience, numeracy, and salesmanship. The English did have lower interest rates on the eve of the Industrial Revolution and Clark claims this as evidence for greater English patience. I find this unconvincing. Low English interest rates are more likely to reflect better English legal protection of creditors' rights (institutions) than something genetic. Even if the English were more patient, patience could come just as easily from nurture as from nature, and although Clark's emphasis on genetics is provocative, he does not provide convincing evidence that genes alone could offer a plausible explanation for the English commercial revolution. I couldn't care less whether "most libertarians" agree with what ever "really simple" point you're making (or claiming to make). Get it? Otherwise it seems you're subtly trying to appeal to the majority and arguing ad hominem at the same time (i.e. "Most other libertarians get it, so why can't you, hmm?"). With that said, you have yet to explicitly provide your definition of "governance". Once again, definitions are inherently arbitrary. I'd like to know whatever definition you're using. Well, I'd say this is a good definition "Governance is the activity of governing. It relates to decisions that define expectations, grant power, or verify performance." From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governance So the "huge demographic transition" you're talking about is going from the characteristics of European societies in 1700 to their characteristics in 1870? And what caused this "huge demographic transition"? Or does that not matter once again (i.e. it's all about missing the forest for the trees)? Actually, it's talking of a move from characteristics of society that were true for hundreds of thousands of years prior to 1700 to a move for a very small subset of countries to the characteristics of modern day societies. Yes, of course the cause matters, but that isn't a debate that's been settled yet. See here http://www.econ.brown.edu/fac/oded_galor/galor%20interview%20dec-17-2007.pdf for one good explanation, Gregory Clark's work and Joel Mokyr's work for two other good explanations or discussions. What you consider to be "generally accepted", historical "facts" or otherwise, has no affect on me whatsoever. I will continue to "nitpick" as I deem necessary. Well, in that case, I'm going to have to argue that SM's theory is clearly wrong. We cannot have been farm animals for the state for the past thousands of years because the dinosaurs were running amok and destroying human society before 1945 when they were finally eradicated. It would have been impossible for the state to function, much less function so well, with all these dinosaurs causing trouble all over the place. I'll get to the rest later. size of the population, while population size affected the rate of technological progress. The size of the population determined the supply of, and demands for, ideas. It also influenced the diffusion of ideas, the degree of specialisation in the production process that stimulated ‘learning by doing’,11 and the level of international trade that further fostered technological progress. At the same time, the rate of technological progress and its effect on the resource constraint, enabled population growth. During the Malthusian epoch technological progress permitted an increase in the size of the population, while population size affected the rate of technological progress. The size of the population determined the supply of, and demands for, ideas. It also influenced the diffusion of ideas, the degree of specialisation in the production process that stimulated ‘learning by doing’,11 and the level of international trade that further fostered technological progress. At the same time, the rate of technological progress and its effect on the resource constraint, enabled population growth. During the Malthusian epoch technological progress permitted an increase in the size of the population, while population size affected the rate of technological progress. The size of the population determined the supply of, and demands for, ideas. It also influenced the diffusion of ideas, the degree of specialisation in the production process that stimulated ‘learning by doing’,11 and the level of international trade that further fostered technological progress. At the same time, the rate of technological progress and its effect on the resource constraint, enabled population growth. During the Malthusian epoch technological progress permitted an increase in the size of the population, while population size affected the rate of technological progress. The size of the population determined the supply of, and demands for, ideas. It also influenced the diffusion of ideas, the degree of specialisation in the production process that stimulated ‘learning by doing’,11 and the level of international trade that further fostered technological progress. At the same time, the rate of technological progress and its effect on the resource constraint, enabled population growth. | Post Points: 5
Mr. Clark documents that wealthier Englishmen had more children for many centuries before the Industrial Revolution. He then argues that the positive genetic attributes of wealthy Englishmen, such as patience, spread throughout the population by natural selection. In this view, human capital was responsible for the Industrial Revolution, but the relevant human capital was a product of genes and not schoolbooks. This is quite flattering to the tens of millions of Americans whose proximate middle-class ancestors had more elite English antecedents, but that alone doesn't make it a good theory of the Industrial Revolution.
While Mr. Clark documents that richer Englishmen had more kids, the same process was surely going on in much of the world. Indeed, the connection between wealth and progeny is generally much stronger in polygamous countries, like those in the Muslim world, which didn't make the same leap towards industrialization and widespread prosperity. Furthermore, I am also unconvinced that England's medieval elite of Norman barons were well endowed with crucial commercial virtues such as patience, numeracy, and salesmanship.
The English did have lower interest rates on the eve of the Industrial Revolution and Clark claims this as evidence for greater English patience. I find this unconvincing. Low English interest rates are more likely to reflect better English legal protection of creditors' rights (institutions) than something genetic. Even if the English were more patient, patience could come just as easily from nurture as from nature, and although Clark's emphasis on genetics is provocative, he does not provide convincing evidence that genes alone could offer a plausible explanation for the English commercial revolution.
I couldn't care less whether "most libertarians" agree with what ever "really simple" point you're making (or claiming to make). Get it? Otherwise it seems you're subtly trying to appeal to the majority and arguing ad hominem at the same time (i.e. "Most other libertarians get it, so why can't you, hmm?"). With that said, you have yet to explicitly provide your definition of "governance". Once again, definitions are inherently arbitrary. I'd like to know whatever definition you're using.
Well, I'd say this is a good definition "Governance is the activity of governing. It relates to decisions that define expectations, grant power, or verify performance."
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governance
Actually, it's talking of a move from characteristics of society that were true for hundreds of thousands of years prior to 1700 to a move for a very small subset of countries to the characteristics of modern day societies. Yes, of course the cause matters, but that isn't a debate that's been settled yet.
See here http://www.econ.brown.edu/fac/oded_galor/galor%20interview%20dec-17-2007.pdf for one good explanation, Gregory Clark's work and Joel Mokyr's work for two other good explanations or discussions.
Well, in that case, I'm going to have to argue that SM's theory is clearly wrong. We cannot have been farm animals for the state for the past thousands of years because the dinosaurs were running amok and destroying human society before 1945 when they were finally eradicated. It would have been impossible for the state to function, much less function so well, with all these dinosaurs causing trouble all over the place.
I'll get to the rest later.
This seems to be the core of your posts, so I'll just address this for now. Sure, that is correct. However, I am in no mood to play the word skeptic game at the moment, as I just don't think it is important to anything I've said. If I make the comment "here is my hand" 999/1000 times I simply do not wish to be questioned on "the existential nature of being" or "what ownership really means", etc. This is an extremely unprofitable and uphill battle for any of my intentions on this thread, and I am not Sisyphus. I am prepared to use any definitions from any encyclopedia, wikipedia, or school 101 textbook you wish to use.
If my words are that cryptic, as they appear to be, than it would be best if the both of us disengage in the current discussion.
And no, "heterodox" is not a bad word. I consider myself heterodox on many things, including economics. I just recognize if I say the sky is green and not blue, it is up to me to state why.
>>That very assumption, the premise of such groups existing, implies impossibility of anarchism. The recognition of the existence of something is not an argument for its eternal existence. check yourself before you wreck yourself.
You are wrong. re-watch the video yourself. Stef does not claim that the problem of an elite class being parasitic of a working class is universal and inevitable, rather that it is widespread and historically dominant . Stef is an anarchist isn't he?
Stef is an anarchist isn't he?
I think the argument she has going is that he can't be, due to the way he defines and views the nature of things. I could be wrong, but that is how I read it.
But what is the evidence for this? what xarthax finds is 'implied' in the video? what xarthax 'feels' when watching it?
That I can't tell you, I was just trying to point out that calling him an anarchist to xarthax at this point in the discussion may be counterproductive to the argument at hand.
Anyway, this isn't my discussion and in trying to help I may have just added unwarranted confusion.
Yes, the projec
Yes, the projection of attitude of Stef's is what paradoxically seems to be implying statist premise
xarthaz: Yes, the projection of attitude of Stef's is what paradoxically seems to be implying statist premise
He’d say that, in his childhood, he has gone thorough the same traumas that’d make almost everyone else a statist.