Got this in response to posting a link to the Daily Article from the other day where Rothbard analyzes Keynesian theory.
I especially like the Soviet reference…
Not really worth my time refuting all his points and he hasn’t in the past shown any desire to try to back up his generalizations but I thought I’d share this little gem.
Oh, and “the direction which sees the majority to liberty & prosperity” would be socialism more than likely…perhaps as currently practiced in Europe.
Leftists seem to have trouble when it comes to addressing Austrian thought. They can’t seem to refute anything in particular, so they switch over to ‘generalized attacks’ mode and try to give the impression that Austrian economics is so loony that it doesn’t need refuting. Which is kind of sad, because these are usually intelligent and honest people, but for some reason they can’t see through their own bullshit.
I actually think part of it has to do with being brought up & raised in a 2 party political statist climate, where, one may grow up to view the other political party as the idiots (and a lot of this is encouraged by others doing the same, the way logic & argumentation isn’t taught so much in the beloved state schools, other circumstances, etc.), and therefore have a right to ignore logic & their own bullshit in pursuit of proving the other to be “wrong”, and themselves to be “right”, whatever argumneative means that might entail.
That’s not to excuse it on the individual level, of course, but I can’t help but think of that as a possible reason sometimes, whenever I happen to skim the daily political news. Especially since in hindsight, I remember when I was a leftist, there was always a focus on who was right and who was wrong, with the why being only superficialy enough to put the other into their place in a debate (this is all ancedotally, of course).
That is part of the problem, certainly. The vast majority of leftists engage in normative emotionalism, where logic and reason seem to give way to what is ‘right’. The rightists seem to practice this as well, at least in the US. European rightists are a bit more rational, but are also far more statist in general.
It is horrendously tiresome to debate with these people. For example, I tried reasoning with a feminist (who claimed she doesn’t hate men) that when one man rapes a woman, it doesn’t result in all men being somehow complicit. The result was, at first, a vague argument about how patriarchal society allows men to abuse women more easily. And after pressing how this exactly results in collective guilt, I found myself at the receiving end of an emotional outburst that I won’t repeat here. I have had this pattern repeat so many times that someone really should make a study of the cognitive dissonance involved. The pattern is always: make vague argument involving collective guilt/victimization → when questioned with logic on the micro level, respond with another vague argument about collective guilt/victimization (preferably involving unjust social structures) → if pressed further, repeat until backed into a corner → throw a hissy-fit.
That is not to be interpreted that I am suggesting there are no smart leftists or rightists. Merely that they are quite rare.
A prophet is least welcome in their native land as these are the folks that know them best. Von Mises and his theories have challenged the economic policy du jour for over 100 years in Austria and most of Europe. First he challenged the Facists with their government control of private business. Then he challenged the Communists with their take over of private business. Then he challenged the “Commie Lite” Democratic Socialists and their control on Austrian society.
People hate to hear they are off on the wrong direction and that the only way forward is to let other people peacefully conduct their lives. Most folks love to hear that you can make the world a better place through benevolence, aka: force and violence.
Did anyone inform this “bemused” imbecile that the scientific method they’re speaking of has fallen out of fashion within philosophical and scientific circles? Almost enough to “bemuse” one. They don’t address the Austrian criticisms of the scientific method, they fail to understand methodological dualism, they think historical facts (which are always complex and multifaceted) can refute sound theory (in practice, no “fact” simply refutes any theory) and instead prefer to mire it in a deluge of pure sophistry. Moreover, one can launch a counter-attack on this charge of ideological bias that government economists concoct abstract nonsense cloaked in mathematical obscurity merely to justify government. The Austrian School is “heresy” indeed, in that it rebukes mainstream received doctrine and refuses to yield to its lies, in that it overthrew the classical school when it came to value and in that it continues to undercut the very foundations of mainstream economics. And like true doctrinaires, mainstream economists choose to ignore it, often invoking their precious, refuted (by its own standards) “scientific method”. Feyerabend and Kuhn pretty much demolished Popper’s paradisiac notion of “conjectures” and “refutations”. In many ways, the Austrian School is about the only good thing to come out of his provincial little country in the past century.
Bemusing, indeed.
-Jon
Nitroaddict, that reminds me of this quote by Russell:
-Jon
Gödel. XD
I was engaging in deliberate hyperbole. He seems to be positively insulted that “his” nation is associated with Austrianism.
-Jon
Here’s an interesting lecture by Rothbard.
-Jon