are you familiar with The Discourses on Livy?
No, I never read it, why?
Wiki says:
Satire?
As there seems to be a very large difference between Machiavelli’s advice to ruthless and tyrannical princes in The Prince and his more republican exhortations in Discorsi, many have concluded that The Prince is actually only a satire. Jean-Jacques Rousseau, for instance, admired Machiavelli the republican and consequently argued that The Prince is a book for the republicans as it exposes the methods used by princes. If the book were only intended as a manual for tyrannical rulers, it contains a paradox: it would apparently be more effective if the secrets it contains would not be made publicly available. Likewise, Antonio Gramsci argued that Machiavelli’s audience for this work is the common people because the rulers already knew these methods through their education. This interpretation is supported by the fact that Machiavelli wrote in Italian, not in Latin (which would have been the language of the ruling elite). Although Machiavelli is supposed to be a realist, many of his heroes in The Prince are in fact mythical or semi-mythical, and his goal (i.e. the unification of Italy) was essentially utopian at the time of writing.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau considered the Discourses (as well as the Florentine Histories) to be more representative of Machiavelli’s true philosophy:
Machiavelli was a proper man and a good citizen; but, being attached to the court of the Medici, he could not help veiling his love of liberty in the midst of his country’s oppression. The choice of his detestable hero, Cesare Borgia, clearly enough shows his hidden aim; and the contradiction between the teaching of the Prince and that of the Discourses on Livy and the History of Florence shows that this profound political thinker has so far been studied only by superficial or corrupt readers. The Court of Rome sternly prohibited his book. I can well believe it; for it is that Court it most clearly portrays.
—Rousseau,
Here is an external link to follow
http://www.unt.edu/honors/eaglefeather/2007_Issue/kniatt.shtml
Hmm, well if it was intended as a satire, it’s even more interesting to me in that I use so many things from that book and they tend to work.
I Ching ‘works’ for some people…
…whatever…
What country do you rule over again?
I’ve been over this with him. He basically didn’'t defend his practical use for it politically, rather he uses it in his day to day life. He gave an example of flattering one of his professors with positive results.
Lol, that’s not the only thing that book is good for.
You are correct. I forgot holding up old couches, a cheap birthday present, and kindling. My bad.
That one was mildly amusing.
First of all, I don’t think anybody here believed themselves to be intellectually infallible. In fact, those that did have largely left the forum, or have been kicked out (including Juan and Knights of Bawaa, who took their presumed infallibility to a whole other level, dedicated to trolling and bellittling other community members). For the most part, the remaining members are open minded enough not to warrant this lecture from you.
That’s relatively easy for you to say. You may read a bit more widely than most here, but you’re still in agreement with the “orthodoxy” here on most issues of substance, you’d (if I’m not mistaken) describe yourself as an anarchocapitalist, you agree with the LvMI’s populist approach and you seem pretty opposed to what most here would label “mainstream” economics. However, on these forum there is a persistent tendency for those who don’t buy into these stories to have our intelligence, knowledge or motives questioned. Now, off the top of my head I can think of quite a few data points to support this: myself, Lam, Student and Donny with an A.
Now, perhaps you’re correct and the average person here really is willing to accept the possibility that libertarianism is one political philosophy that is competing against others, albeit one that seems to be supported by strong arguments and good empirics. The corollary of this would be that people here would be more than willing to admit they’re wrong, which is the point in dispute. Like I said, you could argue this, but you’d be forced to bite the bullet and say that the aforementioned posters really are some combination stupid, ignorant and malicious. You’ve put me into one of those categories already, but are you willing to do so for the other posters?
Second of all, and this is a response to the second to last paragraph in the quoted post as well, I’m sorry if I don’t give you the benefit of the doubt. I don’t believe you have come here to learn, or you are very bad at taking your own advice. From what I’ve seen, from the threads I’ve participated in with you, you have come here to argue for the sake of arguing, preferring to post once and then leave the thread when the debate no longer favors you (I have the Callahan thread in mind). For the most part, these arguments have consisted of assumptions which you consistently fail to back.
It may have escaped your notice, but it’s exam time right now. I’m a little pressed for time and I try to think my posts through, so I’ve left some loose ends that I’ll try to clear up when I have more time. But I’ll openly admit, if I see a discussion going nowhere, I’ll abandon it. Conversely, I’ll stick the course of a real discussion, even if I feel like I’m “losing”. Indeed, the latter scenario is exactly what I wish would happen more often. But it only really seems to happen when people are willing to take the time private message me and sort things out there.
You don’t have to be an intellectual equal in order to debate with someone, or believe that you are right. I recognize your argument up to the point where we’re talking about respect for the opponent, but I believe this should be true whether your opponent is intellectually superior or inferior. But, you are taking it to a whole other level.
If somebody demonstrates expertise in a particular area, I think it’s only rational that one gives their opinion on that matter more weight. I’m not saying that one needs to agree with them, just that their extensive knowledge of a subject needs to be taken into account when formulating your opinion. We’re not, unfortunately, perfectly rational and there’s always the open possibility that we’re just getting something wrong or that we’ve not seen some empirical data that would suggest we’re wrong. But studying a subject for an extended period of time will tend to weed out faulty reasoning and maximise our exposure to the relevant data.
You didn’t know if z1235 had taken a course in money and banking. Maybe instead of insulting him by suggesting that he wasn’t educated enough to have that opinion you should have corrected his mistake. This is what I am referring to when I talk about your general attitude in recent posts - you seem more intent on just telling people they’re wrong, instead of showing them why.
It was an educated guess that he hadn’t taken one, a lot of what he was saying would be addressed in the most elementary course in money and banking, or the basic textbook. Perhaps it came across as arrogant, it was really meant as an earnest suggestion as a means by which he could improve his understanding of economics and see where he was going wrong.
What’s the difference between this and what I said? You think you know more than us
You suggested I thought I was more intelligent than others here, I said that such a claim doesn’t follow from the quotation you provided. But, do I think I’ve read more on the relevant subjects than the average poster here? I think so, and I’d be willing to be that if we put it to the test we’d get evidence that strongly favours this belief.
That’s relatively easy for you to say. You may read a bit more widely than most here, but you’re still in agreement with the “orthodoxy” here on most issues of substance, you’d (if I’m not mistaken) describe yourself as an anarchocapitalist, you agree with the LvMI’s populist approach and you seem pretty opposed to what most here would label “mainstream” economics. However, on these forum there is a persistent tendency for those who don’t buy into these stories to have our intelligence, knowledge or motives questioned. Now, off the top of my head I can think of quite a few data points to support this: myself, Lam, Student and Donny with an A.
Now, perhaps you’re correct and the average person here really is willing to accept the possibility that libertarianism is one political philosophy that is competing against others, albeit one that seems to be supported by strong arguments and good empirics. The corollary of this would be that people here would be more than willing to admit they’re wrong, which is the point in dispute. Like I said, you could argue this, but you’d be forced to bite the bullet and say that the aforementioned posters really are some combination stupid, ignorant and malicious. You’ve put me into one of those categories already, but are you willing to do so for the other posters?
I’m not sure what this has to do with what I said. In any case, if you have your intelligence questioned you should report the post to the moderators. Student, the only one I recognize out of those names (other than Lam), did not have his intelligence or motives questioned. He was able to debate by providing arguments and facts, and without having to rant to others about the possibility of them being wrong. That’s the difference.
I’ve questioned your motives not because of your ideological inclinations, but because of the style of your posts and the fact that to date you haven’t really seemed interested in serious debate. I think I’ve already elucidated this three or four times this thread, so I’m not going to pursue this point any further.
It may have escaped your notice, but it’s exam time right now.
Wow, that’s a really poor excuse. If it’s ‘exam time’ then don’t start the argument (yes, and I have finals as well).
But I’ll openly admit, if I see a discussion going nowhere, I’ll abandon it. Conversely, I’ll stick the course of a real discussion, even if I feel like I’m “losing”.
I have yet to see you do this.
If somebody demonstrates expertise in a particular area, I think it’s only rational that one gives their opinion on that matter more weight. I’m not saying that one needs to agree with them, just that their extensive knowledge of a subject needs to be taken into account when formulating your opinion.
Stop trying to change your original argument.
It was an educated guess that he hadn’t taken one, a lot of what he was saying would be addressed in the most elementary course in money and banking, or the basic textbook.
More of this bullshit. Superneutrality of money and the mechanistic quantity theory of money are taught in Economics 101. These are ‘elementary’ concepts, and it doesn’t mean they’re right.
You missed my point completely, which is unsurprising. Telling him to ‘take a class’ is not helpful at all, and is just a display of arrogance. You have yet to provide a valuable argument on this forum since your return.
You suggested I thought I was more intelligent than others here, I said that such a claim doesn’t follow from the quotation you provided. But, do I think I’ve read more on the relevant subjects than the average poster here? I think so, and I’d be willing to be that if we put it to the test we’d get evidence that strongly favours this belief.
I didn’t meant it as intelligence. I meant as you saying you were smarter than the average poster in terms of knowledge on economics. I thought that was laughable.
I’m not sure what this has to do with what I said. In any case, if you have your intelligence questioned you should report the post to the moderators. Student, the only one I recognize out of those names (other than Lam), did not have his intelligence or motives questioned. He was able to debate by providing arguments and facts, and without having to rant to others about the possibility of them being wrong. That’s the difference
My point is this, as an empirical matter there is a persistent tendency for those who disagree with “LvMI orthodoxy” to be spoken to in a way that is inappropriate for civil discussion. Now, I can think of a few possible explanations for this tendency, the two explanations that jump out are that either people who do disagree with LvMI orthodoxy really are intellectual limited and intellectual dishonest or that people here are overconfident in their beliefs. Now, the latter is my explanation for this tendency, what’s yours?
I suppose I’d better provide some examples, before I do this, let me point out that I’m not pulling up quotations by Juan here, I’ve not searched much but I have tried searching for posts by forum members who are at least indicative of the level of civility and humility here, if not above average.
Now, first there’s the case of Gene Callahan. Let me first point out that Callahan has been studying this whole “libertarianism” thing for longer than most here, and was at one time respected by the folk at the LvMI. He has numerous papers in peer reviewed journals, written an introductory book on Austrian economics and is, I believe, finishing his PhD in philosophy now. Yet, within two pages of a discussion on his critique of libertarianism, his change in views is attributed to psychological weakness, with another poster implying that if he’s reasonable, he must eventually make it back to libertarianism:
Here’s the treatment of Student, who, in your words “He was able to debate by providing arguments and facts, and without having to rant to others about the possibility of them being wrong”, words which, by the way, I would corroborate. And yet, he was a Keynesian, and treated “accordingly”:
Searching through his posts will review similar posts by quite a few other forum members.
And as a final example, let’s choose everybody’s favourite debate, that over fractional reserve banking. A few gems, although this debate really has too much of this stuff to provide any comprehensive survey in one post. Once again, an intellectual of good standing, George Selgin, is targeted here.
…
Jonathan, I don’t intend to shame the people who have said these things, a lot worse things have been said on these forums, some by myself. But I want to provide you with a little bit of evidence when I say that there tends to be a tendency to attribute disagreement to dishonesty or ignorance. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t wish to single this forum out and say that it’s only you guys who do this. I just want people to be a bit more self conscious about the way they react when presented with arguments that are incompatible with their own beliefs. This isn’t a rant, so I think your defensiveness is unwarranted, I’m really just trying to improve the level of discussion.
For what it’s worth, I’m not the only one to have voiced these sentiments, so personalizing this is perhaps a little bit unfair to me.
Wow, that’s a really poor excuse. If it’s ‘exam time’ then don’t start the argument (yes, and I have finals as well).
It’s not an excuse because I don’t feel like I have anything to apologise for. The great advantage of this medium is precisely that debates can be picked up after a while of inactivity. I made the posts when I had time to spare, now I don’t have as much time to follow all of those debates. Rest assured, when exams are over I’ll try and pick up any debates that I feel had the potential of being productive.
Stop trying to change your original argument.
I’m pretty sure that’s what people here would label a “baseless assertion” if they were so inclined to use such terms. I’d like know why you think this is different to the argument I was making before.
More of this bullshit. Superneutrality of money and the mechanistic quantity theory of money are taught in Economics 101. These are ‘elementary’ concepts, and it doesn’t mean they’re right.
You missed my point completely, which is unsurprising. Telling him to ‘take a class’ is not helpful at all, and is just a display of arrogance. You have yet to provide a valuable argument on this forum since your return.
I’ve not provided a valuable argument since my return? This is getting rather unpleasant quite quickly, I’d like to believe that I’ve had a few productive exchanges with various individuals, plenty of whom have failed to express any dissatisfaction with my sincerity. So to say that I’ve not made one single valuable argument strikes me as a little strong, either way, this is becoming needlessly personal and you’re becoming overly defensive.
I didn’t meant it as intelligence. I meant as you saying you were smarter than the average poster in terms of knowledge on economics. I thought that was laughable.I didn’t meant it as intelligence. I meant as you saying you were smarter than the average poster in terms of knowledge on economics. I thought that was laughable.
I’m glad that at least you’re getting a laugh out of this! You quite clearly used the word intelligence, although I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt. I’ll stick to my view that I’m above average in terms of experience with economics, although, I don’t want to get into a petty debate about it right now.
ERO,
Just for the record Hayekianxyz has read DTGF at least once. He may now misrepresent his position but it is factual false he hasn’t done the reading. He can seem to be somewhat avasive in debate but as he said PM is better for a more cordial one on one debate.
How do you know that he has read a book? In the one thread I linked someone insisted on this as fact as well. Did you personally read it to him at bedtime or something? =P
I’ve seen another forum member brag about reading a book a day, yet seem to have a serious problem with reading comprehension in the face of an overwhelmingly powerful and simple epistemic argument (see the IP rhetoric thread). So, whether or not Hoppe’s words grazed Giles’ eyeballs is really irrelevant to his continued lack of a substantive argument against his work.
He has also insisted that we discuss in private (conversation). I could really care less what he thinks, but maybe I will try this just for kicks. I don’t see why he would suddenly become someone capable of civil discussion just because it isn’t in the open.
I also really don’t see where Giles “was a Hoppean”, and don’t say “search for it”. Previous posts and search are just as broken as the quote function.
That’s relatively easy for you to say. You may read a bit more widely than most here, but you’re still in agreement with the “orthodoxy” here on most issues of substance, you’d (if I’m not mistaken) describe yourself as an anarchocapitalist, you agree with the LvMI’s populist approach and you seem pretty opposed to what most here would label “mainstream” economics. However, on these forum there is a persistent tendency for those who don’t buy into these stories to have our intelligence, knowledge or motives questioned. Now, off the top of my head I can think of quite a few data points to support this: myself, Lam, Student and Donny with an A.
Mainstream economics is pseudoscience. Why should I memorize Marx and Hegel, when the flaws in their thought are easily identified and can be demolished in a few sentences.
Here’s a test for you Giles: refute or “say something intelligent” about these essays by Rothbard.
Previous posts sort of work if you click the post count number.
plain old google search with “site:mises.org whatimsearchingfor”
quote user=“E. R. Olovetto”
Excuse me. I object to being dragged into this discussion. E.R., your posts often contribute to the problem of this discussion.*
*For instance: You call your argument powerful without backing. I constructed an argument based on scarcity. You showed that your text (that you posted over and over again) was not scarce (disregarding the fact that no one ever said that your text that you post to the public forum was scarce.) I pointed this out, and showed that there is scarce information, and I showed logically why a property rights society might have third parties not circumventing contracts made by other parties. You respond with ad hominems.
It is no ones fault other than your own if you do not follow the citations provided or do not read books for whatever personal circumstances.
ER,
Do you think that part regarding free will is good? It’s a strawman and he really fails to understand what it even means. And so his demand for proof is like asking someone to predict what evolution will bring in a 100 million years or what the precise temperature will be 25 years from now at a specific location.
Oh, and guys,
Why waste your time with someone who has more than proven he isn’t here to learn or to teach, especially when there is important work to be done?
Sometimes the only way to win is not to play. Isn’t that what freedom / no government is all about?