Nitroadict:I apologize LS, I was not retorting or implying. I stated it as such an observation has been brought up before elsewhere (by others) in the past, usually ignoring the possibility of such a statement applying to "the other side".
It's cool.
Stranger: Economics is utilitarian.
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
I must confess that it is harder for me to write about this topic than in other posts, especially because of a lack of reading background.
However, I would argue that economics is not value free. Economics has values, but usually implied. The profit maximization objective that worked so well in the 19th and 20th centuries comes from valuing material well-being over spiritual well-being. Hopefully that will no longer be the case in the 21st century. There are indications suggesting that succesful economies and succesful businesses will be those able to place spiritual and social (not socialist) values at a level comparable to the material.
Art transcends ideology.
http://mises.org/Community/blogs/ruben
Rubén: I must confess that it is harder for me to write about this topic than in other posts, especially because of a lack of reading background. However, I would argue that economics is not value free. Economics has values, but usually implied. The profit maximization objective that worked so well in the 19th and 20th centuries comes from valuing material well-being over spiritual well-being. Hopefully that will no longer be the case in the 21st century. There are indications suggesting that succesful economies and succesful businesses will be those able to place spiritual and social (not socialist) values at a level comparable to the material.
Well said.
Pro Christo et Libertate integre!
liberty student: Nitroadict:I'm still not following the pseudo-religious beliefs remark (earlier posted), though. Any examples, beyond an "us vs. them" context? I'd refer you to the left/right thread but that was deleted. I'm not going to waste my time posting it again. Nitroadict:On another note (off-topic), I also don't understand why left-libertarianism isn't called "radical" instead; the label fits more approriatly in terms of a scale dealing with authority vs. liberty, not a scale referring to left or right... Well, you can't call it radical. Left-libertarians are not radical. I won't post what I would call it, out of respect for the fact you consider yourself a left-libertarian (when I don't really believe you are).
Nitroadict:I'm still not following the pseudo-religious beliefs remark (earlier posted), though. Any examples, beyond an "us vs. them" context?
I'd refer you to the left/right thread but that was deleted. I'm not going to waste my time posting it again.
Nitroadict:On another note (off-topic), I also don't understand why left-libertarianism isn't called "radical" instead; the label fits more approriatly in terms of a scale dealing with authority vs. liberty, not a scale referring to left or right...
Well, you can't call it radical. Left-libertarians are not radical. I won't post what I would call it, out of respect for the fact you consider yourself a left-libertarian (when I don't really believe you are).
I affiliate with many ideas of the libertarian-left (side note: does the order of prefix matter currently? it's confusing me a little lol... I ask since I'm referring to the market-anarchists, etc. not the statist-leftist who consider themselves "civil" or "social" libertarians or some other nonsense.), but voluntaryist would describe me better, I suppose ("who you are never stop's changing, what you are never changes" and all that, etc.).
What would you call it, then? Criticism is fine by me; without it, I don't think any of us would be here, honestly :D
"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict
Juan: Stranger: Economics is utilitarian. What's that supposed to mean ? Utilitarianism is an intellectually bankrupt moral theory. Maybe you mean that economics is allegedly value-free ?
It is value-free but it is about economizing scarce material goods, meaning that it is by nature materialistic.
I don't understand why I have to explain this to you.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Nitroadict: does the order of prefix matter currently? it's confusing me a little lol... I ask since I'm referring to the market-anarchists, etc. not the statist-leftist who consider themselves "civil" or "social" libertarians or some other nonsense.
does the order of prefix matter currently? it's confusing me a little lol... I ask since I'm referring to the market-anarchists, etc. not the statist-leftist who consider themselves "civil" or "social" libertarians or some other nonsense.
I have a similar question. As I understand it, a "left-libertarian" is a free-market anarchist who believes in market-based revolutionary strategies over political strategies, while a "libertarian leftist" is a state-socialist who doesn't mind if people smoke pot. Yet the "libetarian left" as a philosophical coalition is composed of the former sort.
MacFall: Nitroadict: does the order of prefix matter currently? it's confusing me a little lol... I ask since I'm referring to the market-anarchists, etc. not the statist-leftist who consider themselves "civil" or "social" libertarians or some other nonsense. I have a similar question. As I understand it, a "left-libertarian" is a free-market anarchist who believes in market-based revolutionary strategies over political strategies, while a "libertarian leftist" is a socialist who doesn't mind if people smoke pot. Yet the "libetarian left" as a philosophical coalition is composed of the former sort.
I have a similar question. As I understand it, a "left-libertarian" is a free-market anarchist who believes in market-based revolutionary strategies over political strategies, while a "libertarian leftist" is a socialist who doesn't mind if people smoke pot. Yet the "libetarian left" as a philosophical coalition is composed of the former sort.
I think you're confusing "the libertarian left", which is a somewhat broad label for a coalition of different philosophies, with "libertarian socialism", which is one particular philosophy.
Most "libertarian socialists" are not anarchists, although unfortunately many of them wave the black flag in the name of social democracy. Occasionally one may meet a one or two who are not ultimately advocating violence and mob rule.
The "libertarian left" mostly consists of market anarchists with "left-wing" sympathies and social anarchists who are tolerant towards market anarchists, and while the libertarian left does tend to emphasize market-based and bottom-up strategies over political strategies, that is hardly what defines it.
From my perspective, left-libertarianism can range from mutualism (like Kevin Carson) to free market anarchism with a slight "leftish" tinge (like Roderick Long). Left-libertarians are generally more critical of the political right, emphasize corporate-state relationships more and tend to be "thick" libertarians when to comes to certain causes beyond anti-statism that may be traditionally associated with "the left".
Stranger:I don't understand why I have to explain this to you.
Juan:Too bad economics is built around subjective value -- and subjective value is definitely not materialistic.
It is about the subjective value of scarce goods, meaning material things. Once again I don't understand why I have to explain this to you.
I really don't want to have this conversation. 1. the forum ptb might delete it like they did the last one, and that would really make me mad, and 2. it's just rehashing what has already been said many times. Stop worrying about what to call yourself, and stop trying to identify with or create sub groups. This really seems to be a hangup with the under 30 libertarian crowd. Spending a lot of time classifying themselves and others. It's irrelevant. We're all slaves.
The goal is liberty, a world where no one has a monopoly on violence, or if we're feeling utopian, a world without coercion. Better to spend our time discussing tactics towards that, than what we will call ourselves when we get there.
That's the opposite game. I get accused of painting right good, left bad. But in reality, the people who build such strawmen go out of their way to identify left and paint the right as bad.
I don't think there is room for right or left within libertarianism, and it is a false paradigm to continue to self identify oneself as left. You're either for liberty, or you are not. You are either against coercion, or you are not. You either believe in the right to own property and free markets, or you do not. To me, that's basically the 3 tests. If you can pass those, then in MY WORLD, you are acceptably libertarian, and I don't give a flying fart if you like Hans Hoppe, Lew Rockwell, Rod Long or Lysander Spooner.
The only reason there is a libertarian right, is because the libertarian left have gone out of their way to recreate the political paradigm by branding themselves on a spectrum of libertarianism.
Rubén:The profit maximization objective that worked so well in the 19th and 20th centuries comes from valuing material well-being over spiritual well-being.
Profit maximization in no way implies any set of values. It only implies that one has values, and that one strives to get what one values the most. It would not be "profit maximizing" to seek only material gain if you preferred psychological gains. Profit maximization is not a value, it is a fact about human action. All action is, in a sense, at attempt at "profit maximization" - that is, exchanging a less desirable set of circumstances for a more desirable set of circumstances, with the least loss and most gain possible.
Economics is utilitarian.
Yeah, I never thought this would be so lacking in self-evidence on a forum devoted to economics.
He is confusing catallactics with praxeology. Catallactics (i.e. economics) is specifically related to material goods as well as services produced for the purpose of attaining a profit. Praxeology subsumes all action.
-Jon
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Jon Irenicus: Stranger: Economics is utilitarian. Yeah, I never thought this would be so lacking in self-evidence on a forum devoted to economics.
The first. It deals with the subjective preferences of agents in the market, i.e. how they set out to satisfy these preferences (utility.) Economics deals specifically with the material aspects of this process. So what did he say that is unclear?
Utilitarian can mean relating to utility. So it's far from meaningless.
Jon Irenicus: Utilitarian can mean relating to utility. So it's far from meaningless. -Jon
Agreed.
But now this thread is becoming Futilitarian. Relating to futility.
You can go back to Brainpolice's post and Stranger's reply and perhaps clarify what Stranger is saying ?
Yeah, although I think it is pretty clear as it is - he is saying value-judgements are neither here nor there with regard to economics, i.e. it is value-free, i.e. its analysis is utilitarian given that that is its subject matter.
liberty student: Agreed. But now this thread is becoming Futilitarian. Relating to futility.
You know Thomas Kuhn's analysis of science said that without fundamental agreement on the paradigm of a science, it is impossible for a group of scientists to make progress.
Maybe it's time to start expelling from the forums those people who do nothing but interfere with the debates.
Brainpolice:Both monarchy and democracy are unjust and hence his point is largely irrelevant.
Knowledge is irrelevant. Good one.
Peace
Byzantine: Brainpolice:He just makes a utilitarian defense of monarchy compared to democracy, which has little to do with justice. I could care less about capital value when the fundamental concern is justice. Whose justice: yours or mine? You are going to get right back to economics, because the closest we're going to get to everyone's subjective conception of "justice" being satisfied is to let a bunch of different constructs compete for adherents. In this regard, a system of feudal holdings all competing with each other for human and fiscal capital stacks up pretty good against a system whereby the parasitic majority lives off the productive minority. If, on the other hand, your goal is a worldwide standard of justice that comports with your belief system then you should infiltrate and promote the central state so your universal standard of justice can be immanentized.
Brainpolice:He just makes a utilitarian defense of monarchy compared to democracy, which has little to do with justice. I could care less about capital value when the fundamental concern is justice.
Whose justice: yours or mine? You are going to get right back to economics, because the closest we're going to get to everyone's subjective conception of "justice" being satisfied is to let a bunch of different constructs compete for adherents. In this regard, a system of feudal holdings all competing with each other for human and fiscal capital stacks up pretty good against a system whereby the parasitic majority lives off the productive minority.
If, on the other hand, your goal is a worldwide standard of justice that comports with your belief system then you should infiltrate and promote the central state so your universal standard of justice can be immanentized.
Libertarian justice - and stop dancing around this concept. You're setting up a false dichotomy or presenting me with a false set of choices between fuedalism and global government or fuedalism and democracy. As radical libertarians, we're supposed to reject both. You seem to be actually advocating neo-fuedalism as an alternative to democracy (and this is hardly a strawman given your rather blatant comments inferring this). I could just as easily make a utilitarian comparison between communism and fascism, and conclude that fascism is the lesser of the two evils, but that doesn't mean I'm going to go on to actually endorse fascism.
I find it strange that you continually speak as if libertarianism is divorced from a concept of justice, as if it's all just a matter of utilitarian economics. You should very well know better than that - re-read your copy of The Ethics of Liberty. Libertarianism is a comprehensive political theory, and as such it has to do with interpersonal ethics and consequentially a concept of rights and justice. Or do you reject Rothbard's universalism and hence disregaurd human rights?
JonBostwick: Brainpolice:Both monarchy and democracy are unjust and hence his point is largely irrelevant. Knowledge is irrelevant. Good one.
That does not follow. I'm saying that utilitarian analysis of things is irrelevant to their justifiability in ethical terms.
Juan:Who do you think should be 'expelled' ?
Anyone who doesn't tow the pro-fuedalism pro-nationalism pro-conservative line apparently.
Stranger: liberty student: Agreed. But now this thread is becoming Futilitarian. Relating to futility. You know Thomas Kuhn's analysis of science said that without fundamental agreement on the paradigm of a science, it is impossible for a group of scientists to make progress. Maybe it's time to start expelling from the forums those people who do nothing but interfere with the debates.
A witch-hunt of any type, to any degree, directed to any given group of individuals, is not going to solve anything. There is plenty of divide already.
Brainpolice: JonBostwick: Brainpolice:Both monarchy and democracy are unjust and hence his point is largely irrelevant. Knowledge is irrelevant. Good one. That does not follow. I'm saying that utilitarian analysis of things is irrelevant to their justifiability in ethical terms.
Best forget economics then.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
I don't know why you would say that, as "justifiability" is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand, utility.
Economics says "Wage controls cause unemployment" without ever having to address the morality of government wage controls; that is why it is value free. It is able to analyze all actions, regardless of morality.
Knowledge of the utility of an action is required for a person to know if that action is compatible with their personal preference. Hoppes is spreading the knowledge that democracy is counterproductive towards liberty, its up to his readers to prefer liberty.
MacFall: Rubén: I must confess that it is harder for me to write about this topic than in other posts, especially because of a lack of reading background. However, I would argue that economics is not value free. Economics has values, but usually implied. The profit maximization objective that worked so well in the 19th and 20th centuries comes from valuing material well-being over spiritual well-being. Hopefully that will no longer be the case in the 21st century. There are indications suggesting that succesful economies and succesful businesses will be those able to place spiritual and social (not socialist) values at a level comparable to the material. Well said.
No, it wasn't. It doesn't even make sense.
A business's only purpose is to engage in business. They exist to facilitate economic exchange, nothing else.
Individuals, on the other hand, could choose to spend less of their time doing business and more time doing other things. But I fail to see why we should long for a day when people work less and spend more time bird watching.
It seems like everyone who thinks people are too "materialistic" really favors redistributing wealth. Yet if materialism is so bad then the poor must be the lucky ones. In short, these people are idiots.
JonBostwick:It seems like everyone who thinks people are too "materialistic" really favors redistributing wealth. Yet if materialism is so bad then the poor must be the lucky ones. In short, these people are idiots.
In any case, as Rothbard points out people are more likely to be less materialistic in an advanced capitalist economy because of increases in wealth that mean a declining marginal utility of a unit of money. As can be seen for the fact that most people from Ethiopia right now are trying to stay alive and we're on the Mises.org discussing economics.
Nitroadict:A witch-hunt of any type, to any degree, directed to any given group of individuals, is not going to solve anything. There is plenty of divide already.
We can't have a productive debate unless we agree on what is being debated. Those that disagree must be excluded if we are to reach any useful result.
GilesStratton: Brainpolice: JonBostwick: Brainpolice:Both monarchy and democracy are unjust and hence his point is largely irrelevant. Knowledge is irrelevant. Good one. That does not follow. I'm saying that utilitarian analysis of things is irrelevant to their justifiability in ethical terms. Best forget economics then.
That's also a non-sequitor. The point is that such utilitarian concerns don't trump libertarian normative rights.
Stranger: Nitroadict:A witch-hunt of any type, to any degree, directed to any given group of individuals, is not going to solve anything. There is plenty of divide already. We can't have a productive debate unless we agree on what is being debated. Those that disagree must be excluded if we are to reach any useful result.
If those who disagree are excluded, then it's not a debate, it's a clusterfuck of confirmation bias.
Being a utilitarian is hardly a prerequisite for having a debate.
Brainpolice:If those who disagree are excluded, then it's not a debate, it's a clusterfuck of confirmation bias.
He's not asking for agreement on conclusions, he's only asking for agreement on what the question is.
JonBostwick: Brainpolice: JonBostwick: Brainpolice:Both monarchy and democracy are unjust and hence his point is largely irrelevant. Knowledge is irrelevant. Good one. That does not follow. I'm saying that utilitarian analysis of things is irrelevant to their justifiability in ethical terms. I don't know why you would say that, as "justifiability" is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand, utility. Economics says "Wage controls cause unemployment" without ever having to address the morality of government wage controls; that is why it is value free. It is able to analyze all actions, regardless of morality. Knowledge of the utility of an action is required for a person to know if that action is compatible with their personal preference. Hoppes is spreading the knowledge that democracy is counterproductive towards liberty, its up to his readers to prefer liberty.
Justifiability is 100% relevant to the topic of a comparative analysis of democracy and monarchy. A mere shallow utilitarian economic analysis does not make a comperehensive case for liberty.
Morty: Brainpolice:If those who disagree are excluded, then it's not a debate, it's a clusterfuck of confirmation bias. He's not asking for agreement on conclusions, he's only asking for agreement on what the question is.
The question is monarchy vs. democracy, and this does not require one to debate it in purely utilitarian terms, it also begs the broader question of legitimacy in the case of both systems. Hoppe's analysis essentially demonstrates that monarchy is more efficient and sustainable rulership than democracy. My entire point is that this is irrelevant from a normative ethical standpoint and only begs a bunch of questions. Why should the relative efficiency and sustainability between the systems matter much in light of one's opposition to the fundamental premise and methods that both systems are based on?