This post is a fundamental appeal to emotion. Whether someone is aarogant or not doesn’t mean they are wrong or right. Arrogance is a matter of opinion. The fact that your a communist posting on an AE forum would seem highly arrogant to me.
Ultimately how do you expect to gain any fruit from this thread? Austrian’s being arrogant does not disprove their positions. Ours is a logical position, not a rhetorical position. Whats yours?
We’re still waiting for you to show us a communist who is knowledgeable about the SVT, Praxeology, and Catallitics. When we are done with the ad-hominem game and want to start actually discussing the logical framework of AE let us know!
Start another thread. I’d like to continue this. A market is anarchy. Anything else is a coercive effort. You’ll have to prove otherwise and pet-definitions are not allowed. [:)]
All of them. As mentioned, advocacy of capitalism necessitates statism.
Really? Can you provide any examples of me treating others worse than they’ve treated me?
Out of curiosity, have you ever actually read any of his posts there? Here’s an example:
There was no informed anti-anarchist commentary in that post; merely crude and insulting personal attacks. If anyone here knows Alex Fibman or whatever he calls himself, he’s the same way.
I don’t have to correct myself. Anyone who reads your post can see that it contains a statement that there is no cause for Austrians to be angered by the posts, and you now wish to claim that you didn’t actually state this because a quick counter-example emerged.
Of course you are. A very marginal one without much support off the Internet, but a movement nonetheless. There’s no complete conformity of ideas (there never is, among any ideology), but there’s enough commonality to apply the label.
Except for the fact that race is an immutable characteristic that categorizes only extreme heterogeneity, but sure, other than that minor difference, you’re entirely right.
That there is a commonality of positions here in support for Austrian economics is an accurate observation. I don’t know why you’d wish to deny it, but your denials do not change that.
A challenge to the merit of his statements would imply that they were to be taken seriously in the first place, and considering that he merely made assertions without arguments or external references, there’s not much basis for that. But if you want to see rebuttal of his commentary, look at the thread I mentioned earlier.
I won’t be withdrawing anything. I’ve expressed in numerous posts my belief that capitalism necessitates the existence of the state, and from that I derive my belief that all proponents of capitalism are statists. If you want to debate that at length, start a thread about it. It would give us an opportunity to investigate the fraudulent and oxymoronic ideology of “anarcho”-capitalism more clearly.
Incidentally, what “wide berth”? I’ve been engaged by most active posters here, as far as I can tell.
I’m not surprised that you’d think that, but no. That use of quotation marks reflected my belief about the nature of “anarcho”-capitalism, whereas placing “economist” in quotes is literally an attack on an individual and his or her economic credentials.
Generalization? Noting that the Austrian school is marginal is an accurate comment, as it has almost no influence on modern economics, even for a heterodox school.
I’m inclined to think so, considering that the vast majority of my ideology is divergent and opposed to theirs and even the foundations for our “shared” belief are radically different. Conversely, there is nearly universal support of Austrian economics here even if there is internal dissent.
That was a response to a generalization, and I did it specifically for the purpose of highlighting the fact that I didn’t engage in personal attacks on that basis.
By that logic, your comment here is also a personal attack, since my own “personal attack” was an accusation of a prevalence to engage in personal attacks. BTW, what “group of people”? You might have LS down your throat here; isn’t that inconsistent with the methodological individualist perspective?
I would hope so, considering that I quoted members from there in the first post. But why is a “libertarian” forum banning dissenters for arguing with mods?
I did not claim otherwise; I merely expressed the opinion that excessive arrogance might inhibit civil discussion.The fact that you’re unwilling to even agree indicates a thing or two about your own attitude, though.
That’s a shame. If I were to rebut the long post that probably took you a while to write today or tomorrow, would that indicate the same thing?
Only a concession of arrogance, which you’ve effectively offered. That can hopefully be a basis for recovery, after all.
How would I ascertain whether an anarchist or socialist is knowledgeable about the topic, as the majority don’t focus on criticism of Austrian economics?
So visit the thread, if you haven’t.
That’s not evidence of much, considering that there’s far more homogeneity of opinion on here than there is on RevLeft. But more importantly, I have no influence over the policies of RevLeft or actions of other members, so why bring it up? Are you some kind of collectivist?
Exactly. Perhaps you should consider a more fitting title next time.
You should consider a more fitting title next time. I’m not really sure how an ideology can be fraudulent and I could care less about whether anarcho-capitalism “really is anarchy” its a pointless debate, it doesn’t change anything. Its already been shown that anarcho-capitalists don’t think its impossible for people with different views not to be intelligent, so there really isn’t a difference at all. Everyone is an individual. You just seem to be have sour grapes because of the actions (or tone) of some.
I have yet to see the general rule established in “anarchist” Spain at all. But again I cannot see why conditions (such as war time fervor) need be mentioned at all if we agree its impermissible. Impermissible is impermissible. “Anarcho”-capitalist society is a very open idea, certainly murder could occur. I never implied otherwise. However a voluntaryist or libertarian society definitely could not have such mass-atrocities.
From what I’ve read, most of the counter-arguments are merely conditions-of-war sympathy (similar to that put forth by McKay) and not actual refutations. Nor have I found a display of facts leading to any sort of overall picture besides little liberty. I’ve read Antony Beevor but he’s way too biased to be taken seriously.
Exactly. There isn’t a free market, only state capitalism.
The point of presenting “anarchist” Spain accurately. Being an “anarchist” and incorporating Soviet “socialism” into the capitalist tradition doesn’t change anything. As I’ve already said:
And I really didn’t see any anti-authoritarian bias from him, just preferences.
And you attribute this to me. Evidence thanks. Back up your claim that “every post is a screaming personal attack against others rather than focus on their arguments”, or withdraw your lies. To count I must actually be engaged in a discussion with a “leftie”, otherwise it’s meaningless.
You didn’t think, that’s the problem. You should have alleviated your ignorance before making baseless assumptions & jumping to conclusions.
What trend? Your example is bunk, as has been shown.
And when have I ever done that. Evidence thanks. Back up your claims. Prove it, or withdraw.
That is your current handle / username. What was yours at rpf? And what was your previous one here? Do you go around introducing yourself as “Leviathan”? It’s probably fitting anyway.
Wrong, there were heaps that denied it. That fact that you haven’t read the right threads, doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.
Basically you are accusing me of ad hominems. I don’t do that. This I do however, when necessary (first 30 seconds).
“Economic rightists?”
It’s amusing that you continue to get wrong.. the most basic and fundamental differences between Austrian School of Economics and Libertarianism.
Economics is meant to be value free, or do you disagree? In regards to “rightists”, being a Libertarian - I reject both the “left wing” and “right wing” - it is a false dichotomy. Never the less, your “guess” is wrong.
You cannot argue, that you cannot argue. What is the first thing that comes to mind when someone tries to do exactly that?
Another contributing factor was that the same moderator and a few other members would appeal to the Constitution and limited government, using Ron Paul to do so. I constantly pointed out, that it’s more than likely Ron Paul is a closet anarcho-capitalist. I then found that motor-home diaries video which confirmed it. They lost their ability to deny it. The option was confront their inner contradictions & inconsistencies or find a reason to ban me. The resulting excuse was what you are hearing Leviathan parrot here. I called a FDR, New Deal supporter known troll a “nit-wit” after he admonished me. No joke.. lol
An individual? At least you weren’t thinking in collectivist terms.
You are thinking of wrong quote. This is the second quote i was referring to: “Attacks on Spanish anarchism are characteristic of Internet “anarcho”-capitalists, which was my point.”
I don’t see how your explanation of why “anarcho-capitalism” is oxymoronic is different from the Randians.
The Austrians. Or do you prefer “class of people”?
Are you saying that two methodological individuals can’t use the method to come to the same conclusion?
Which forum are you referring to?
The “Opposing Ideologies” ghetto section is particularly heterogeneous.
And you don’t have a bias? Please, it is a rather shoddy argument to simply say ‘well you are biased, therefore you don’t count.’ Did you construct this argument without the example of Conzo in your mind? If so then who did you base it on so I can properly acknowledge it as an attack on them.
If you are filled with self-doubt then that is not our problem. Second guess yourself to maintain that you are not ‘assured.’ Frankly I care not.
Oh how suddenly you become so assured of the fact that Austrians are supposedly wrong. Is that arrogance I detect in your style? Please, do not think yourself the first socialist to come on here thinking Austrianism is the epiphany of mankind. Stick around, we have many here who would love to discuss economics with you and I would certainly love to discuss the idiocy of socialism itself.
We don’t ban people simply because they propound a theory. They are ban for not following forum rules which can easily be found in the help section. If you need help finding it I can provide a link. Frankly I like having one or two socialists around. Keeps us on top of our game.
It would be counter productive for you to do so. We’d be arguing past each other never addressing our premise’s.
Instead I’d rather start bottom up with you and identify our discrepancies. Then go from there. There is no point in arguing the details on the top if our fundamentals are whats in conflict. Your are welcome to respond to that thread though. [:P]
Actually, it’s just an objection to style. In the future, I’d suggest you not lie your ass off in order to cover for your idiotic and impossible-to-actually-justify “economics” stance.
There is no such thing as the right to not be offended, you know. And there’s no such thing as the right to a gold star just for posting. Nor a right to not have your childish and inherently self-contradictory “economics” system critiqued.
Not that I’m done with the other posts here (I’ll probably address them later in the day), but this post did make me laugh as a clear demonstration of exactly the sort of snobbish and obnoxious arrogance that I keep referring to.
What’s most ironic, of course, is that the prospect of you facing me in a one-on-one economics debate is somewhat akin to that of an Ewok dueling Darth Vader.
I only cursorily looked through the first page in the thread, but I fail to see the ubiquitous “arrogance” of the Austrian school.
My run in with certain a professor last semester, actually suggests the exact opposite of what you’re saying. The professor, who I actually happen to like, accused the Austrian school and their acolytes to be pedantic and downright snobby.
However, if you sit in his class for an hour, you will quickly see who’s arrogant and who isn’t.
Like most out-right socialists, he was fond of making dogmatic assertions and even got a portion of the class to go along with him (unfortunately).
Instead of addressing the issue at hand, they resort to downright name calling, thereby avoiding the actual issue at hand.
Locked. (Plus I see a flame war between you and BAAWA brewing.)
You’re free to debate the merits of anarcho-communism/capitalism here so long as it is civil, but regarding calling us arrogant, after that display of hypocrisy, you haven’t got a leg to stand on.
