But some are more equal than others.
I had something not quite dissimilar happen on a radio call-in show. The host asked me if lying was immoral, and I proceeded to walk him through the fact that it’s not necessarily, based upon context. I asked him if it would be ok for him to lie to a thief regarding the whereabouts of his valuables. The host hemmed and hawed and would not give a direct answer. When I challenged him, he hung up on me. It was priceless.
I would hope I would be more civil than that.
It depends on how one defines “reasonable”. I would definitely admit that people can disagree.
I would hope that I would never tell them to their face that I think they are stupid. Name calling is childish.
That’s…a new term for me. You seem to remain quite confused of what the Austrian School is about.
This is just more of the same confusion of Austrian Economics with anarcho-capitalism and libertarianism as seen above.
That has nothing to do with Austrianism whatsoever. Austrian economics is a value free approach to science.
I see one major point and several minor points with this topic. Firstly, the main seems to be nothing more then an attack on Conzo for how he presents his arguments. I feel this is absurd. Conzo is a great contributor to the discussion here at the LvMi forums and since I have been here I have never seen him lose his temper or make an insulting post. Never had a problem with him. I speak for myself of course, but he is a joy to have around. Like BAAWA implied, this seems to be more about his style then his substance. Really a silly discussion in my mind. One of the other minor points deals with this ‘arrogance.’ It is not so much arrogance but assuredness in the rightness of what we propose. One of the things I constantly hear in describing Mises is ‘uncompromising.’ Austrian economics as a discipline does not need to be questioning it self to the point of lackluster self-confidence. I would make a distinction between questioning our methods for self-reflection and bettering and questioning our methods out of fear or bullying behavior. Concerning the next point:
‘There seems to be a similar pattern of belief in the idea that some on the forum seem to hold that advocates of Austrian economics are the only folks around with even the slightest bit of common sense, and that opponents, socialist opponents in particular, are always economically ignorant and often asininely stupid to an extent that approaches comedy’
Socialists and their theories have always been ‘asininely stupid’. Give me a socialist theorist, any one and I can tell you the stupidity and contradiction of their planned societies. Fourier, as if I actually had to try? Saint-Simon? Proudhon? Marx? Owen? The socialist economy on some level assumes economic ignorance of the market whether it is the LTV, incentive problem, calculation problem, or knowledge of the market.
Also concerning the Ron Paul forums, I hear the ‘horror’ stories from both Conzo and Daniel, both who I respect enough to trust their stories.
Like who?
These guys:
You already know the answer.
I am totally out of the loop on this one.
The moderators and posters here are also very pro-state, but my point was that elitist incivility can build to a point where every post is a screaming personal attack against others rather than focus on their arguments. Regardless of what the reason for the ban was (RPF bans dissenters, so I’m not overly concerned with their ban reasons alone),I’m thinking that was the case with him and with many others, for that matter.
You implied that there was no cause for bitterness or frustration; the emotional reaction of other posters indicates otherwise.
Oh, internal ideological disagreement certainly doesn’t kill a movement, or advocacy of anarchism would be long dead. What I’m speaking of is the movement that advocates Austrian economics and their large Internet constituency.
I told you; the basis of my objection to the snobbish arrogance comes through his style. It comes through the substance to a lesser degree on account of the extremely poor quality of much of his work, but that sort of arrogance seen in that text is ridiculous.
See, even this comment expresses the snobbish arrogance very effectively. “Economist” is placed in quotation marks, as though it’s inconceivable that any anarcho-communist could ever be an economist. Personally, I don’t reciprocate. I see that there are numerous “anarcho”-capitalist economists, even if the Austrian school remains a marginal one. I won’t advance the premise that anyone who adheres to an opposing ideology cannot possibly have the slightest economics training, as this person has.
And why would an anarchist economist even be concerned with facets of Austrian theory? I would think they’d be more concerned with informed anti-capitalism and advocacy of a libertarian economic structure, as Robin Hahnel is, for example.
Attacks on Spanish anarchism are characteristic of Internet “anarcho”-capitalists, which was my point. Anarchists are addressed with a ragged and meager assortment of anti-anarchist texts over and over again instead of engaged seriously.
I certainly do, given the nature of my opposition to the fraudulent and oxymoronic ideology of “anarcho”-capitalism. However, I do not imply that it is impossible for “anarcho”-capitalists to be intelligent or economically informed, even if I attack their theories. Therein lies the fundamental difference.
I did not claim that it was permissible; I claimed that it was an exception to a rule and not characteristic of the more fundamental nature of anarchist organization. Are you implying that murder would not occur at all in “anarcho”-capitalist society and that a single murder would prove that there are fundamental deficiencies?That seems quite utopian.
I’ve read plenty of Bolloten myself; I was the one who wrote the entire “criticism” section of the Spanish Revolution Wikipedia article. My impressions are that Bolloten does not provide substantial empirical research to indicate that violent coercion was the general rule of Spanish anarchist society so much as demonstrating that it existed (which it did), and then moving to imply or openly claim that the majority of anarchist society was organized in this way without basis.
Western market capitalism utilizes the same hierarchical structure as Eastern state capitalism, but they are different modes of production because there are other important differences between them.
It does, actually. You accused the author of excessive anti-capitalist bias; I said that it was not excessive because we incorporate Soviet “socialism” into the capitalist tradition, in a sense, as a result of their similar hierarchical structure. So his “anti-capitalist” bias is effectively an anti-authoritarian bias, which I’d say is permissible for an anarchist.
And the term “anarcho”-capitalism seems contradictory and oxymoronic to me and the majority of self-described anarchists, but I take that as a challenge to criticize “anarcho”-capitalist theory, not to simply disparage the intelligence or economics training of its advocates.
Don’t worry; you’re not special. You’re just a good example of the trend I mentioned.
Most anarchists and socialists strike me as being more economically informed than the Austrian school’s Internet proponents, but I don’t take that as an excuse to mock and disparage everyone on this forum instead of engaging them in arguments.
Yes, but there was no one there that denied that you had a history of engaging in personal attacks and incivility, regardless of the ban reason. And since you did that in the midst of fellow economic rightists, my guess is that you’d be even more hostile around leftists.
I’m Leviathan.
Actually, it’s objection to both style and substance, as I find his snobbish arrogance laughable but prone to fallacy nonetheless. If you want an example of me addressing the substance of his commentary, look to my rebuttal of his animal rights comments in the thread about cows and mentally retarded humans.
Your opinion is an anecdotal and biased one, as you mentioned, and popular perception elsewhere indicates otherwise. Regardless, how is the “main” an attack on Conza when I didn’t mention him until prompted for a specific example?
That would be a euphemism for arrogance, as the “assuredness” leads to pompous dismissal of socialist opponents as stupid or economically uninformed.
In my opinion, Austrians and their theories have always been asininely stupid, and modern Austrian economics has no coherent theory of the firm or knowledge of labor economics, a flawed and inaccurate business cycle theory, contradictory and ultimately inferior arguments in the socialist calculation debate, etc. Worse, it spawns a legion of economically ignorant Internet proponents who have no coherent theory of the firm or knowledge of labor economics, a flawed and inaccurate business cycle theory, contradictory and ultimately inferior arguments in the socialist calculation debate, etc. However, I don’t use that belief as an excuse to simply mock and disparage every single Austrian opponent I encounter without reason. I attempt to engage anyone with arguments until they’ve resorted to personal attacks, and then I generally reciprocate. But I don’t instigate, and I have no belief that all Austrians are unintelligent and ignorant.
Yes, I had a fellow anarchist on RevLeft tell me that he was banned there for advocacy of communism, so I’m quite aware that the RPF isn’t libertarian. Funnily enough, he also told me that he was banned here for arguing with a moderator, which is why I had the same perceptions of this forum at first.
For example?
Any advocacy of capitalism requires statism, as the state is an integral stabilizing agent in the capitalist economy.
But let’s not get off-topic; I’m more than willing to address the topic, but someone should start a thread about it.
Who?
And yet you’ve been treated much better than you have treated others here. So any supposed elitist incivility has been on your part thus far in our relationship.
Are you thinking it, or do you know it? If you know it, please substantiate it. If you are only thinking it, I don’t think anyone particularly cares.
You claimed I wrote it. Did I or did I not write it? If I did not, shouldn’t you correct yourself?
We’re not a movement.
Which is arbitrary and somewhat meaningless. Judging people by class is no different than judging them by race. It’s a form of collectivism. Many of us subscribe to methodological individualism here. If you’re going to make collective generalizations, then you’re starting out with a fallacious position in every critique.
So basically you object to his arrogance as you perceive it. You aren’t actually challenging the merit of his statements. Fair enough. When substance is uncomfortable, let fashion reign. [:)]
Actually, you’ve made an accusation, and we’d like you to substantiate it. You’ve received a wide berth here, but that doesn’t mean you won’t be expected to debate in good faith.
So explain who in particular, or withdraw the comment.
Ah! I see you placed “anarcho” in quotes. You must be arrogant as well. Btw, what’s with the generalization in the second quote?
I see you have a commonality with the Randians. How could that be? Are you not of a different class as they?
Again, with the generalizations.
This thread is a personal attack on an entire group of people.
I knew it!!!
Go ahead.
I want him to name names or withdraw the comment. I’m all for the good host to statists bit, but not if they are going to make baseless accusations and not be accountable for them. If he is going to make a claim, he should meet the same burden of proof we expect of one another. He should substantiate his claim. Starting new threads is just an opportunity to provide a less than artful dodge.
Leviathan, I’m waiting for a response to your claim about what I wrote, as well as specific examples of pro-state moderators and posters. You’re welcome to withdraw both claims if you cannot support them.
I’ve made a separate thread for Leviathan to make the case that all forms of capitalism require the state.