Scrooge McDuck & inflation
And for the first time in the year 2013… I have to turn on my air conditioning… Fuck yea!
WTF? Where do you live Texas? I just shovled snow last week.
Lmao sucks for youuu!!!
And nah man, I’m a yank through and through.
"The owners of 120 auto dealerships have filed a federal lawsuit against Carfax Inc., alleging that the vehicle history reporting company engages in anti-competitive practices and violates antitrust laws.
The suit, filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, seeks damages of more than $50 million. It also alleges that Carfax, through exclusive agreements with auto companies and popular classified auto Web sites, is “monopolist in the sale of vehicle history reports.”"
The headline should be “Autodealerships gain unfair advantage by colluding to sue Carfax.”
My latest article:
Mises versus Rothbard on free will
http://www.vforvoluntary.com/articles/mises-versus-rothbard-on-free-will.html
“Mises points out the way to have a chance of affecting the actions of another person: their ends, historical context, and understanding must be taken into account. If the other person gains a different understanding of the world, then the causal processes of his choices will be different as well.”
The Economics of Foreign & Military Intervention | by Chris Coyne
Nielsio,
If your article is saying that Mises and Rothbard disagree about free will, Mises saying there is none, and Rothbard saying there is, that’s not correct. Of course Mises assumed free will. The very concept of "action’, as Mises uses the word, is impossible without it.
If one looks up all the big words as one reads Chapter 1, Section 6 [The Alter Ego], in HA, this becomes crystal clear.
That’s not how it appears to me.
The problem of the study and analysis of other people’s action is in no way connected with the problem of the existence of a soul or of an immortal soul. As far as the objections of empiricism, behaviorism, and positivism are directed against any variety of the soul-theory, they are of no avail for our problem. The question we have to deal with is whether it is possible to grasp human action intellectually if one refuses to comprehend it as meaningful and purposeful behavior aiming at the attainment of definite ends. Behaviorism and positivism want to apply the methods of the empirical natural sciences to the reality of human action. They interpret it as a response to stimuli. But these stimuli themselves are not open to description by the methods of the natural sciences. Every attempt to describe them must refer to the meaning which acting men attach to them.
As I said in my article, the matter of goals, planning and choices is not at odds with metaphysical causality. Mises’ discussion in what you linked tries to point to the complexity of the brain that the empiricists are underestimating and modelling away.
Making arguments counter to empiricists and in favor of subjective value is not an argument in favor of free will, and it doesn’t seem like Mises is doing that.
Rent is too damn high! --music video/campaign video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHEitsYJnmw
Definitely worth the LULZ
The Lunacy of Our Internet Access, and How Google Fiber Could Provide Needed Shock Therapy
Super-Google to the rescue! Not an oligopoly, one company to rule them all. Maybe I read wrong but the whole article seems to advocate Google doing stuff that the government would eventually take over for the greater good. This stuff includes an electronic, online grid throughout every nook and cranny in the country. Gee, sounds fun.
After looking around, I found Theory and History, Chapter 5, which lays out his views very clearly.
Bottom line, he sees three possibilities.
- Man chooses between modes of action incompatible with one another. Such decisions, says the free-will doctrine, are basically undetermined and uncaused; they are not the inevitable outcome of antecedent conditions.
This is what he calls ““free” in the metaphysical sense of this term” in that part of HA you quoted in your article. He rejects this, because of course a person’s decisions are influenced by his past.
- Man, they say, deceives himself in believing that he chooses. Something unknown to the individual directs his will…Man does not act, he is acted upon.
He rejects this one, too. Accepting it. btw, would mean throwing all of praxeology out the window.
- The choices a man makes are determined by the ideas that he adopts.
This is the one he thinks is right.
It follows, of course, that if there is some area of life where he has no preconceived notions, he has 100% free will.
The free-will doctrine is correct in pointing out the fundamental difference between human action and animal behavior. While the animal cannot help yielding to the physiological impulse which prevails at the moment, man chooses between alternative modes of conduct. Man has the power to choose even between yielding to the most imperative instinct, that of self-preservation, and the aiming at other ends.
Do you see any need to revise your article in light of that chapter from T and H? So you still think Mises and Roth. are at odds?
Mises acknowledged that theoretically humans could someday have the knowledge to understand the causal process of thoughts in terms of physics and chemistry, though he was skeptical of humans actually achieving this level of knowledge. Methodological dualism allows for humans to study and learn about human action without fully understanding the causal process that leads to it.
Mises did not believe that this conflicts with a properly defined understanding of free will, though he apparently didn’t like the term:
+1 GL
Clayton -
I was at a electrical engineering conference two weeks ago where Bob Frankston was speaking. He offended the sensibilities of most of the engineers there. Most of the engineers believed that the consumer should pay and private companies not the government should be investing in the technology.
“consumer should pay”
the nerve! why, thats laissez-fascism!
This is the new Abe-Simpson-leaving gif. Jump on the band wagon!
