Well, a fully free market was firstly described by Gustave de Molinari…in 1850 ! Too bad Mises never read Molinari haha.
A position based only on logic is an empty tautology.
again you make no sense, but what’s new…
Be careful in how you phrase this, this is not reflective of the Austrian methodology, which deals with concepts abstracted from reality then operates deductively upon them. Facts also are important when deciding whether a certain theory is applicable or not in a given scenario; Mises opposed the notion that the hypothetico-deductive methodology could be used in the social sciences and that statistics were a good basis for theorising - he did not decouple economics from empirical facts. I strongly recommend reading Selgin’s Praxeology & Understanding and Long’s book on Wittgenstein to get a grasp of what is going on.
Your post constituted a non-answer, and you claimed abstention at the end. So it is disingenuous for you to claim I am making a strawman, attributing a false position, when you refuse to reveal your position. In order for my attribution to be false, you would have to be in opposition. You refuse to reveal that, and thus cannot make such an argument.
Unfortunately, after today, you no longer have the credibility in debate to offer anyone advice or direction.
I have to earn a living and invest my limited free time here where I can. So just because you post, if it isn’t valid, interesting or contain some other value I can recognize, I will blow past it. If you have a specific critique you need me to address, I will do so. But to wade into your stream of conciousness, sorry, I don’t have resources to match the subsidies you receive.
Did you or did you not read my response that Lam moved? I don’t understand why you continue talking past it.
I thought I did, what was it?
The strawman referred to in that post was your claim that I value my liberty moreso if it comes at the expense of others. I don’t know I’ve ever made such a claim, and if I have I’ll take it back immediately. As for “non-answer” I don’t believe that’s a fair characterization. My answer was that this time in my life I don’t have any well defined normative views on whether or not government is legitimate, and that furthermore “bringing down the state” doesn’t rank highly on my value scale to say the least. I simply don’t concern myself with the existence of the state beyond my interest in studying its economic consequences. Perhaps if you have any specific issues on my views you could ask me, but you’re looking for an answer when one doesn’t exist. But I imagine if I were to ask you what your favourite restaurant in Portugal you wouldn’t be able to provide me with an answer.
I’m going to have to ask why this is. I don’t think I’ve been particularly unfair and throughout the day I’ve tried my best to answer the questions and meet the challenges provided by yourself, Wilderness, Anarchist Cain, Eric and Juan. When there have been objections to what I’ve written I’ve tried my best to meet them and I believe I would have been more than willing to concede the point had I felt there was significant enough evidence against it, as I have done in the past on issues such as fractional reserve banking.
So why have I lost my credibility, because I don’t know the answer to the question of whether or not I believe the government to be immoral and have no interest in doing so? Perhaps if I had an interest in political philosophy that might make sense, but your faulting me for not having the same interests as you do. On the other hand, I suspect you’re just being doctrinaire. I suppose this would be the appropriate topic for such behaviour. I just hope newer members don’t follow this example because some such as Eric have shown willingness to listen to arguments that aren’t entirely in line with theirs.
So I’d really like an answer to this question, because I believe your opinion holds quite a bit of sway on these fora and I wouldn’t want such comments to stand in the way of reasonable discussion. Discussion which I’ve like to believe that I can contribute to given my interest in economic science.
Sure it is.
Which is disingenuous. You have well defined views on Hoppe’s class theory. On Rothbard’s approach to economics. On the value of economic science. On race. On gays. On drugs. On the family. Your entire tenure here, has been characterized by your strong views. As far as bringing down the state, that was never the question. The question is whether or not you support the state.
Because you’re playing a dishonest evasion game. You’re quick to criticize libertarians for their political views, but refuse to clarify your own political views.
Lots of us listen to sincere arguments made by honest people.
Et tu? You’re not in a position to ask anyone for an answer.
I’m just pointing out the obvious hypocrisy in your arguments. When you treat others well and debate in good faith, you will regain some credibility.
LibertyStudent, Hoppe presents his views on class theory in the context of Austrain economics, Rothbard’s economics are clearly Austrian. The rest of the issues you mentioned are clearly within the realm of value free social sciences. Economics and sociology to be precise, I notice a pattern there. Comparatively speaking I’ve done a lot of reading in those two areas and considerably less so in areas that pertain to ethical theory and politically philoshopy. Likewise, I don’t jump into debates about the worth of Kantian epistemology and opposed to Aristotelian (sp?) epistemology because I haven’t done the reading necessary to take a postition, let alone formulate some sort of coherent argument. I’ve not done that reading because, quite frankly I find philosophy operates at too high of a level of abstraction which bores me. I’m not denying it’s worth, I’m just saying it doesn’t interest me. I don’t see what you’re issue is, your pushing me to answer a question that I just can’t because as of now no answer exists. I plan on reading Nozick’s Anarchy, State and Utopia sometime soon so perhaps I’ll get back to you after that. This time last year I had just finished reading Rothbard’s The Ethics of Liberty which I found to be absolutely great at the time. Since then I’ve realized what I can only perceive to be flaws in Rothbard’s arguments and I’ve moved away from the position, my interests have also moved away from the sort of questions that Rothbard attempted to answer in The Ethics of Liberty and more towards the sort of questions that he sought to answer Power & Market and the second half of Man, Economy and State.
So, I still don’t think I’m being dishonest here. If I’m not answering the question you want me to it’s because right now I can’t. Partly because I realise that in order to answer the question I’d have to devote considerable amounts of time towards political philosophy and ethical theory. Which, right now, I’m just not willing to do.
As for criticizing libertarian’s view. I don’t see how this makes my hypocritical or inconsistent. I will criticize their views if I perceive them to be flawed. But I think that I’ve stayed out of such debates recently precisely because of the reason that you note. It’s perhaps a little odd for me to critique the views of others when I have no clearly defined views of my own.
Well, it’s a shame you think that, and I hope others don’t think so lest possible contributions on my behalf by ignored because you’ve decided I’m not credible. That said, I think your judgements will remain the same whatever case I make for my own credibility and however much I try to answer your question to the best of my ability, so I won’t lose much sleep over it. I guess this is what happens when you see the world in black and white.
Don’t worry about what I say about your behaviour. Worry about how your peers are judging your posts on their own merits. Making assinine threads like this, or daring mods to ban you because you don’t think they have the balls, or throwing around racial slurs, those things undermine your credibility, and can’t be laid at anyone elses’ doorstep.
Having a good reputation is important.
Having a good rep, starts with being accountable. Be accountable by staking out a position on a subject before you criticize others.
lol. I’m not an expert on English but I do understand it pretty well. I said “What is sociology” - that was a rhetorical question - it meant : I think sociology is not a science and is mostly irrelevant. Also, something like ‘sociology’ seems to be a bit at odds with methodological individualism … or ?
But granted, Weber did make some good points, like his criticism of catholicism.
Yes, but sensible people, as far as I can tell, don’t advocate a purely aprioristic approach to politics or economics. Yet some a-priori principles are needed when dealing with politics and economics, to make sense of experience.
Oh, my mistake then. I largely agree with you on sociology, yet I don’t know the discipline enough to make an ultimately definitive judgment.
I’m always happy to hear critiques of my beliefs.
Come to think of it, Herbert Spencer used the word as well. The content of Spencer’s sociology is rather close to laissez-faire economics though.
No. A question has an infinite number of incorrect answers; however, a question has a limited number of correct answers. Therefore, the ability to refute a potential answer to a question does not preclude the ability to ulimately definitively answer that question.
Indeed, sometimes we need be skeptical of the certainty of our own knowledge, and realize that, when we criticize others, our own conclusion may be just as wrong as theirs. The world is not a black, and white dichotomy - in fact, both sides of a debate can have wrong conclusions, yet a correct responce regarding the similary wrong, and opposing conclusion. In fact, criticizing others is one of the best methods I’ve found to my own conclusions.
That’s fascinating, but completely outside the scope of my discussion with Giles.
lol…
Person A: “No, that’s wrong.”
Person B: “Why is that wrong?”
Person A: “Well, it’s not my opinion.”
Person B: “Then why are you saying I’m wrong?”
Person A: “I’m trying to find my own conclusions.”
Person B: “And what conclusions are they?”
Person A: “That you’re wrong.”
Person B: “Why am I wrong?”
Person A: “I’m trying to find my own conclusions.”
Person B: “And what conclusions are they?”
Person A: “That you’re wrong.”
Person B: “Why am I wrong?”
lol…
Which of Rothbard’s arguments are flawed?
What questions are you referring to in TEOL and what sort of questions are you referring to in PM and MES?