Economics is no more of a soicial constgruct than any other science.
It is true if one starts to make narratives of it that are outside it’s scope and boundries, it is no longer science, but metaphysics - this is true with all sciences.
On a personal note, I think ontology preceedes all this - and is the reason why we can talk about all these things at all. We are essentially building our position from Stirnerite/Aristotelian ontological egoism. This is why we have any scientific narrative at all, and the categories spring after ontology(and by neccessity).
Still though what I said is still metaphysics not science - and science only exists within certain perameters - so even that is irrelevant for the purposes of the thread as “to what comes first and why”.
Liberterianism = / = Austrian economics, it just has a high correlation with it. I would also point out that Rothbardianism =/= liberterianism, it is only one segment of it. I don’t even know if it is in the majority. (for the purposes of this post only liberterianism = ancap)
Austrianism is no less empiricle than any other science. In fact compared to other versions of social sciences the argument can be made that it is radically empiricle.
We do not need Quine to tell us the uselessnes of the false dichotomies made by the positivists (so the claim of empty tautology doesn’t even work in this tradition) - We have Aristotle, Kant, and later Wittgenstein. And if one has a taste for the analytics Ludwig Lachmann seems to think Austrian economics is 100% compatible with Karl Popper’s revised theory of knowledge.
If you want semi-short (5-15 pages) papers on these subjects let me know and I’ll link them.
I struggle with spelling the word empirical. I have bad vowel movements because I am consonatepated. Remember to tip your bartenders.
“The hidden premise in your statement, as I see it, is that “social factors” are infinitely malleable. Can you support this implicit contention?”
If race were anything but a social construction it would be evident cross-culturally and across time. It is not. Brown or hispanic in the US could be White in Mexico, Brazil’s racial categories can vary between parents and children, which they can’t here. Itialians and Irish used to be non-white in the US unti fairly recently. Etc., etc., so on and so forth. What you mean by “infinitely” is beyond me.
“I fail to see where you’ve put forth any valid criticism here. Austrian Economics is value-free and has never tried to be otherwise. To talk about Austrian Economics being authoritarian or anti-authoritarian is like talking about whether water is happy or sad.”
Great. Is the title of this not “Economics is a social construct”? That’s all I’m getting at.
“Please support this contention.”
Already did. Have any evidence to the contrary or must I keep providing evidence until you see fit, regardless of your position?
“Thanks for being at least more explicit here about your claim that “social factors” are infinitely malleable. Otherwise, see above.”
I’m interested in your take. Do you think social factors like race are static and objective or do you think they’re malleable? In what ways are social factors unmalleable?
Vive, I think this is pretty accurate, but my response to Mikachussetts is probably similar to what I have to this.
Mikachussetts, my argument would be that Austrian Econ is unable to reach across into a broader critical theory, especially when we start looking at the Rothbardian styled strains of it which are particularly dogmatic. Broadly defined, there’s definitely an influence into things such as literary crit, etc., but I would argue that in order to really open up into broader critical discourses, one would have to drop a few basic premises of Austrianism along the way, and whatever remains would probably be more accurately described as Austrian influenced, rather than a synthesis of two or more ideas. It then becomes “Austrianism in the event of…” and becomes metaphysical, as vive was saying. What that does is drop the entire point of describing “what actually is” that Austrianism is supposed to do.
Kevin Carson, a self-styled Mutualist, keeps saying he’s planning on writing something that will “Austrianize” LTV. While I’m excited to see how he does so, it requires reliance on ideas outside of Austrianism to start with the premise of LTV in the first place, to the point where it seems like he will just be, in effect, using a particular diction to say what non-austrians have been saying in the first place. I don’t see this as a very substantial synthesis, and it’s a criticism I have of a lot of Carson’s work.
The reverse is actually what I think happened to Rothbard and anarcho-capitalists. As they picked up Austrianism or classical liberalism they basically had to drop the basic premises of the Anarchists like Tucker along the way and ultimately failed at making a meaningful synthesis of the two ideas anarchism and capitalism.
My point is that as a doctrine, Austrian Economics does not really present a challenge to any current system as it takes all preexisting social factors as a given. It has no imagination.
My second point is that Austrianism fails to really answer the questions most people are looking for. It can offer some insights into why some people chose A and not B or some other very superficial things, but can it adequately explain existing power dynamics or provide a critical standpoint of existing institutions beyond a violation of NAP (a principal in which the term aggression is not applied nuetrally)? Beyond superficial, and pretty elementary criticisms can it provide doorways to anything deeper like psychology, sociology, or even literary theory? My argument would be that it cannot.
Is that the post you are talking about to mika?
If so I would say that the probelm specifically with LL’s is half the time we just don’t know what they are talking about. A Marxist, neo-Keynesian, anarcho-primitivist, or whatever have something tangible that we can look at and criticize and discuss. Most of their (LL’s) points don’t pass elenctic tests or they just seem to just “skeptic out” of any foundation they dislike…and if it I am right on that skepticism is an absolutley pointless position. So whe we ask “what are you trying to accomplish?”, we simply don’t understand what you are saying.
If you look at posts by Brain Police, the dude is probably smarter than I am, though he doesn’t say anything - he refuses to, and that’s not to pick on him - but just to show what I think is symptomatic about LL’s. Now there is nothing wrong with defining yourself by trying to critique your way out of the Austrian position because you think you can- and you “sense” something is wrong with it, and see where that leads - there is absolutely nothing wrong with “trying to find a foundation” as a foundation, it’s probably a good way to go about things…I just don’t think I have seen that clearly stated by any LL who even remotely has acknowledged Menger’s science. If people would, than at least we know where you stand and what you are trying to do.
Where did I mention race specifically. Nowhere. I referred to “social factors” - i.e. all of them (according to you). That is, I was necessarily speaking in terms of generalities, not specifics.
What I mean by “infinitely” is this: the notion that there are no limits to the forms that “social factors” can take.
No, apparently it’s not all you’re getting at. You just posted what you thought was a valid criticism against Austrian Economics specifically.
Where have you supported it?
I think they’re objective in the sense that Person A is observed to look down on Person B because Person A perceives Person B to be a member of some race or other arbitrary category that Person A does not like. But my point was that, as far as I can tell, the notion of the tabula rasa is flawed. We’re not born as “blank slates” onto which literally anything can be written.
“If so I would say that the probelm specifically with LL’s is half the time we just don’t know what they are talking about. A Marxist, neo-Keynesian, anarcho-primitivist, or whatever have something tangible that we can look at and criticize and discuss. Most of there points don’t pass electic tests or they just seem to just “skeptic out” of any foundation they dislike…and if it I am right on that skepticism is an absolutley pointless position.”
Well, first there’s a distinction to be made. The “big” LL’s are the likes of Roderick Long, Carson, and basically the C4SS crowd. But I don’t think that’s who you’re addressing. You probably mean the regulars on FLL, of which there is no real definitive characteristic.
Except for probably that which you just pointed out. I think the root of that is that most of the people at FLL don’t spend a lot of time reading much of any theory and come about most of their beliefs by discussing and/or practicing them along the way. However, many of the folks over there are disenchanted Austrians or AnCaps and have gone through all the criticisms at this point (I should point out, I’m not among that group). So there’s not much talk about it and most have moved on.
There’s a basic acknowledgement of contradiction at FLL that is much more useful when it comes to discussing things. There’s an acknowledgement that malleable social factors have concrete effects, that we may be emodied by material things but we’re more than them. No, it’s not usually a specific stance, but it’s actually much easier to work with inherent contradiciton or at least acknowledge that our language cannot escape it. At least, that’s my take. And it actually leads to some substantial criticisms, and occasionally very concrete positions.
Out of curiosity - and perhaps on a bit more to relevant social political actions:
What do you think about the overall general decentralizing philosophy of Burke, or maybe the more radical Whigs? That may be beyond the scope of this thread, so if you don’t want to get into it understood.
"Where did I mention race specifically. Nowhere. I referred to “social factors” - i.e. all of them (according to you). That is, I was necessarily speaking in terms of generalities, not specifics.
What I mean by “infinitely” is this: the notion that there are no limits to the forms that “social factors” can take."
Then I’m not sure we’re talking about the same thing. I named things I view as social factors and put an etc. in to leave room for things I would consider social factors, but didn’t think of.
“No, apparently it’s not all you’re getting at. You just posted what you thought was a valid criticism against Austrian Economics specifically.”
I could talk about Keynesianism all day, but I don’t think it would be relevant to this board. The criticisms I have are when people try to take Austrianism places that it just can’t go.
“Where have you supported it?”
My claim that social factors are malleable? What exactly are you looking for support for? I’m not sure what you’re referring to.
“I think they’re objective in the sense that Person A is observed to look down on Person B because Person A perceives Person B to be a member of some race or other arbitrary category that Person A does not like. But my point was that, as far as I can tell, the notion of the tabula rasa is flawed. We’re not born as “blank slates” onto which literally anything can be written.”
Observable, sure. You won’t find any argument from me that racism, sexism, classism, all the isms are unobservable. But static or necessary, no. What I’m saying is that those things are taken as a given and not challenged. Austrianism is tied up in them so long as they exist.
Can’t say I’m familiar with the exact philosophy you’re asking about. I’m much more familiar with the likes of the levellers than I am the Whigs, and even then, I’m pretty shoddy on English history, politics, and, well, most things Anglican (aside from US history, which I’m not sure you can avoid the way public schools here are structured).
Then what are you talking about, exactly? Where do you draw the line between that are “social factors” and things that aren’t?
Where do you think it can’t go? Or do you mean when people try to apply Austrian Economics in non-value-free ways?
By “contention” I was referring to this:
I don’t see where you’ve provided any support for this contention. That doesn’t mean you haven’t - only that I haven’t seen it.
I fail to see how Austrian Economics takes those things to be either static or necessary. But again, Austrian Economics is value-free - that is, it’s descriptive, not normative. Yes, you could say that this is a limitation of Austrian Economics, but so what? Is a field of study or a school of thought only worth learning about to you if it challenges the status quo at every turn? What am I missing here?
All I can say is if you are a literature / movie/ TV/ Play person you are missing out ,the English speak our language and are better than us per capita on such things, and can hold their own to just about anyone else (and if nothing else Shakespeare really may be that good, Hamelet may be the 1st existential piece of lit). History wise, on a personal note, as a story I find them a pretty cool read - and probably my favorite W. European story post “fall of W Rome”…not to slight the French, Spaniards, Scandinavians, Swiss, Portrageuse, etc it’s just an aesthetic thing (and I have none of their blood in me, so it isn’t nationalistic either).
Either way what I was fishing for, to make a long drunken strory longer…the very basic principle (very basic - and don’t credit this as Burkean philosophy) is to put decentralizing as more or less a better option as a “thing in itself” and to take primacy on most issues as a “meta” theoretical socio-politcal topic…calling ithe representive govt of choice in the decentralizing process; be it republicanism, rightism, leftism, monarchy, ancapism,anarcho-syndicalism, democracy, etc the best realistic “meta” sociological option.
The logic being that the smaller the group choice, the more representitive it is to the consenting culture, the more the individual will have power and say in local matters as a “rule of thumb”. Furthermore the more things are decentralized, the easier it would be to flee / marginalize/ ignore unwanted authority and compare it to other extant systems already in place.
In a very herp-derp moment when I said “all things Anglican” I somehow didn’t mean to include English literature, which I’m quite familiar with, but is also the only real digging I’ve done as far as English history.
Anywho, I have a similar meta approach as Burke’s, I think, but its rooted in a mix of anti-authoritarianism and post-structuralism. The two compliment each other quite well, and it keeps me on my toes before asserting something definitively. I’ve basically come to accept that an anrchist’s work is never done. Say that tomorrow there’s a revolution and everything I currently advocate happens. What do I do then? Start skipping through fields and enjoying my freedom? Hell no. There will probably be plenty of things to organize around on anti-authoritarian grounds. I live for the day when I become a reactionary and younger folks tell me that my ideas are antiquated and reformist.
I have begun a rigorous examination of Austrian economics in the Permanent Keynesian Refutation thread. It really does seem inadequate at explaining things if the responses I’ve gotten can be considered representative. Perhaps the analytic vs. synthetic issue explains the disagreement. It’s as if Austrians treat the statement, “violating property rights is harmful” as an analytic proposition. Whereas I see it as synthetic, as an assertion that needs to be supported. I provided an extensive example where violating someone’s property rights could result in a net gain for the majority. The responses I got appealed to dogma: “Breaking a window can’t help someone because that’s violating property rights.” And tried to twist my descriptive statements into normative ones: “You support theft and murder. You’re a sociopath!” For claiming to be value-free, Austrians certainly seem to have a problem with interpreting competing economic assertions in a value-free manner. Now it seems to me that Austrian economics could be used in questioning given property relations, but I have yet to see someone here even entertain the possibility.
You are right that an Austrian economist should not be making the value statement “Violating property rights is harmful”. Neither should they say the opposite. However, very few of us on the forums are actual economist (I’m certainly not), so I think what you are seeing is libertarians who study Austrian economics making the value statement that “violating property rights is harmful”.
However, I think I can make clear what they are saying:
Living in a society with social cooperation is good.
Aggression hurts social cooperation.
Violating property rights is aggression.
Violating property rights is harmful [to the goal of social cooperation].
Of course, one’s goal does not need to be living in a society based on social cooperation, but I think you will find that most posters here do want to live in such a society.
And socialists maintain that (capitalist) property rights are aggression. So I think that’s where the dispute lies, not that they disagree that social cooperation is good. I probably shouldn’t have used the word “violate” as that has negative connotations. Maybe “ignore” or “disregard” would be better.
But yes, my point was that they were conflating their values with their descriptive beliefs. I am trying to discuss value-free principles in that thread, but they keep bringing their values into it. Maybe Mises is better about avoiding this. I have yet to read him but plan to.
Interesting. I wonder if it ought be profitable for left and right libs to maybe start at categorizing primary, seconday, and teritary “meta” issues follwed by “actual factual” empirical issues as they present themselves in local situations only. I wonder if that would help calrify things a bit between the two camp - at least in political issues?
Ex: How good is it for any of us here for the most part to talk about PIGS or Palistine, or perhaps even Barak Obama’s foreig policy, etc?
P.S. In my opinion, being aquainted enough with a countries literature is usually better than being aquinted with their historians. So you’re fine on England if you think you have a good enough general 101 overview of their lit,
That sounds like it might be a good project. I’m not aware of any text that thoroughly compares right and left libertarianism. There’s the Anarchist FAQ section on anarcho-capitalism, but that’s a completely one-sided account.
As much as I’d like to believe that there’s common ground between the two, it’s been tried for so many times for so many years that it seems like its not worth it. The FLL posters are pretty much at the point where they’ve realized there is no common ground (even the founder, Wombatron, who no longer posts there is approaching that point).
Murray Bookchin tried in the 80s and ended up bitter. Rothbard tried to hop on the New Left train by calling his philosophy Anarchism and then turned bitter later on. In the 90s there was a solid Left anti-capitalist movement, followed by its disintegration and interested in Libertarianism again. And now the Left Lib blogosphere is pretty much on the same page as the more conventional Anarchists.
That’s not to say good discussions can’t be had. But if you’re looking for common ground you’re going to have a hard time.
As far as I can tell, this is due to “left-libertarians” and “right-libertarians” having fundamentally different premises. For example, “left-libertarians” staunchly oppose profit, rent, and interest, while “right-libertarians” do not. “Left-libertarians” hold to a theory of ownership based solely on “occupation and use”, while “right-libertarians” do not. “Right-libertarians” hold that value is necessarily subjective, while “left-libertarians” ultimately appeal to some objective theory of value.
Until you get to theories of value, pretty much. That and “left-libertarian” is probably a broader brush in that paragraph than “right-libertarian.” Otherwise it’s pretty spot on. Left-libs call capitalism into question, right-libs accept and justify it.