Yeah, although I think it is pretty clear as it is - he is saying value-judgements are neither here nor there with regard to economics, i.e. it is value-free, i.e. its analysis is utilitarian given that that is its subject matter.
-Jon
You know Thomas Kuhn’s analysis of science said that without fundamental agreement on the paradigm of a science, it is impossible for a group of scientists to make progress.
Maybe it’s time to start expelling from the forums those people who do nothing but interfere with the debates.
Who do you think should be ‘expelled’ ?
Whose justice: yours or mine? You are going to get right back to economics, because the closest we’re going to get to everyone’s subjective conception of “justice” being satisfied is to let a bunch of different constructs compete for adherents. In this regard, a system of feudal holdings all competing with each other for human and fiscal capital stacks up pretty good against a system whereby the parasitic majority lives off the productive minority.
If, on the other hand, your goal is a worldwide standard of justice that comports with your belief system then you should infiltrate and promote the central state so your universal standard of justice can be immanentized.
Knowledge is irrelevant. Good one.
Libertarian justice - and stop dancing around this concept. You’re setting up a false dichotomy or presenting me with a false set of choices between fuedalism and global government or fuedalism and democracy. As radical libertarians, we’re supposed to reject both. You seem to be actually advocating neo-fuedalism as an alternative to democracy (and this is hardly a strawman given your rather blatant comments inferring this). I could just as easily make a utilitarian comparison between communism and fascism, and conclude that fascism is the lesser of the two evils, but that doesn’t mean I’m going to go on to actually endorse fascism.
I find it strange that you continually speak as if libertarianism is divorced from a concept of justice, as if it’s all just a matter of utilitarian economics. You should very well know better than that - re-read your copy of The Ethics of Liberty. Libertarianism is a comprehensive political theory, and as such it has to do with interpersonal ethics and consequentially a concept of rights and justice. Or do you reject Rothbard’s universalism and hence disregaurd human rights?
That does not follow. I’m saying that utilitarian analysis of things is irrelevant to their justifiability in ethical terms.
Anyone who doesn’t tow the pro-fuedalism pro-nationalism pro-conservative line apparently.
A witch-hunt of any type, to any degree, directed to any given group of individuals, is not going to solve anything. There is plenty of divide already.
In anarchy if you want rights you have to pay for them. That’s why economics trumps your conception of justice. I say this as someone with very strong opinions on what is just and unjust.
Best forget economics then.
I don’t know why you would say that, as “justifiability” is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand, utility.
Economics says “Wage controls cause unemployment” without ever having to address the morality of government wage controls; that is why it is value free. It is able to analyze all actions, regardless of morality.
Knowledge of the utility of an action is required for a person to know if that action is compatible with their personal preference. Hoppes is spreading the knowledge that democracy is counterproductive towards liberty, its up to his readers to prefer liberty.
No, it wasn’t. It doesn’t even make sense.
A business’s only purpose is to engage in business. They exist to facilitate economic exchange, nothing else.
Individuals, on the other hand, could choose to spend less of their time doing business and more time doing other things. But I fail to see why we should long for a day when people work less and spend more time bird watching.
It seems like everyone who thinks people are too “materialistic” really favors redistributing wealth. Yet if materialism is so bad then the poor must be the lucky ones. In short, these people are idiots.
In any case, as Rothbard points out people are more likely to be less materialistic in an advanced capitalist economy because of increases in wealth that mean a declining marginal utility of a unit of money. As can be seen for the fact that most people from Ethiopia right now are trying to stay alive and we’re on the Mises.org discussing economics.
We can’t have a productive debate unless we agree on what is being debated. Those that disagree must be excluded if we are to reach any useful result.
That’s also a non-sequitor. The point is that such utilitarian concerns don’t trump libertarian normative rights.
If those who disagree are excluded, then it’s not a debate, it’s a clusterfuck of confirmation bias.
Being a utilitarian is hardly a prerequisite for having a debate.
He’s not asking for agreement on conclusions, he’s only asking for agreement on what the question is.
Justifiability is 100% relevant to the topic of a comparative analysis of democracy and monarchy. A mere shallow utilitarian economic analysis does not make a comperehensive case for liberty.
The question is monarchy vs. democracy, and this does not require one to debate it in purely utilitarian terms, it also begs the broader question of legitimacy in the case of both systems. Hoppe’s analysis essentially demonstrates that monarchy is more efficient and sustainable rulership than democracy. My entire point is that this is irrelevant from a normative ethical standpoint and only begs a bunch of questions. Why should the relative efficiency and sustainability between the systems matter much in light of one’s opposition to the fundamental premise and methods that both systems are based on?