How to Argue Like a Rothbardian

[Anonymous]

And everyone is born w an established set of concepts. Find a way to criticize yourself or youre just going to live in a land of self-reciprocating philosophy based on nothing more than you and your aqquaintances agree with it.

Blind faith is good for noone nowhere at no time

[I_Ryan]

@Anarchist Cain

Criticizing a political ideology that I do not know of or have conceptual knowledge of disallows me to make a priori judgements about it. If you disagree then I put forth this challenge to you. I have just invented a new ideology called Obtuse Naturism. Criticize the political platforms of Obtuse Naturism and propound your ideology which according to you is obviously better. Perhaps you are thinking of asserting ‘well how do we begin our journey into the political ideology?’ to which I reply, we experience states [ ie state of freedom ] which we conceptualize through experience. If I like the state of freedom then I will be willing to join an ideology that propounds a state of freedom and from this conceptualization I can preform a priori predictions as to the results of this enacting of this state.

Therefore to criticize an ideology is to imply that it is bad and therefore you are implying that there is a good. What this good is, is obviously from the conceptualization of an experienced state. Therefore to criticize, one must have an established set of concepts.

Do you believe that Giles has no knowledge of economics? Or, do you believe that he has incomplete knowledge of economics (like all other people) and therefore changes his arguments often (like all other people)?

No one claimed that some one can criticize a doctrine that that some one has no knowledge of.

[Laughing_Man]

@Hermes on the day of your death

You criticize yourself. If you cant criticize the things you agree with your beliefs are based soley on faith, and no real evidence.

I criticize myself for not living up to my own belief structure. If I commit thievery, I can criticize myself as being a thief which to me would imply a heinous state of mind.

@Hermes on the day of your death

Its like taking lessons of liberty from the founders even though they were slave owners. Yes, Jefferson was a hypocrite, but was he wrong in the declaration?

The ambiguous term ‘founding fathers’ is thrown around a great deal these days. It is somehow meant to imply everyone that agrees with me in the 18th century and no one that doesn’t. I think he was wrong to write down that all men are created equal and actually believe it when he was clearly contradicting it. If he didn’t own slaves, believed that all men are created equal and believed it then I think he would be right.

[Laughing_Man]

@Hermes on the day of your death

And everyone is born w an established set of concepts. Find a way to criticize yourself or youre just going to live in a land of self-reciprocating philosophy based on nothing more than you and your aqquaintances agree with it.

No, the concepts are experienced, like I stated.

[Anonymous]

Only to those disposed to faith does founding fathers mean that. I just said that I find mentors in the founders, even though I disagree with them on certain things.

Every once in a while, you have to criticize your belief structure itself. This is why I say the people on this site are not much different than any religous fundamentalist. No fundamentalist will ever say any line of the Bible is wrong. And none of you will ever say that any line from Rothbard is wrong.

[Laughing_Man]

@I. Ryan

Do you believe that Giles has no knowledge of economics? Or, do you believe that he has incomplete knowledge of economics (like all other people) and therefore changes his arguments often (like all other people)?

To my knowledge Giles was an Austrian and still admits to being an Austrian so according to him, his views on economics haven’t changed.

@I. Ryan

No one claimed that some one can criticize a doctrine that that some one has no knowledge of.

Well your retort was that I was claiming the belief that no one can criticize Rothbardians without first establishing a set of concepts was changing the argument from incomplete to no knowledge.

[Laughing_Man]

@Hermes on the day of your death

Only to those disposed to faith does founding fathers mean that. I just said that I find mentors in the founders, even though I disagree with them on certain things.

You find mentors in several factions whose ideologies contrast with one another.

@Hermes on the day of your death

Every once in a while, you have to criticize your belief structure itself.

Self-reflection.

@Hermes on the day of your death

This is why I say the people on this site are not much different than any religous fundamentalist. No fundamentalist will ever say any line of the Bible is wrong. And none of you will ever say that any line from Rothbard is wrong.

How are you knowledgable about the minds of those on this site? How do you know they do not self-reflect? Quick read my mind right now because I’m providing you with the answer.

[Anonymous]

This guys and idiot. WHy does he still “troll” this site. I hate these retarded Keynesian statists.

Did I do a good job as a psychic?

[Anonymous]

Im simply saying I have yet to see any Misesian criticize Mises, in any way, for any thing.

I can play this game too

Quick; give me a criticism of Rothbard…

[Laughing_Man]

@Hermes on the day of your death

This guys and idiot. WHy does he still “troll” this site. I hate these retarded Keynesian statists.

Did I do a good job as a psychic?

Oh so close. It was actually Keynesian ignoramus. Just because you don’t see everyone running around this site saying “Well Rothbard was wrong about this!” “Mises was wrong about that” “God damn I hate that nihilist Lachmann” doesn’t mean that those in this group don’t self-reflect. I think it is Plato or Socrates who said ‘the unexamined life is not worth living.’

[Laughing_Man]

I don’t like Mises utilitarianism and I don’t like Rothbard’s anti-feminism.

[twistedbydsign99]

Rothbard couldn’t conceive of secular ethics and had to keep a sky ghost around. Quick enough for you?

[Laughing_Man]

@twistedbydsign99

Rothbard couldn’t conceive of secular ethics and had to keep a sky ghost around. Quick enough for you?

I would classify logic as a secular ethic. Logic can be a creation of non-mystical entities.

[I_Ryan]

@Anarchist Cain

To my knowledge Giles was an Austrian and still admits to being an Austrian so according to him, his views on economics haven’t changed.

The views of Menger and Bohm-Bawerk and Mises and Rothbard and Hoppe are all somewhat different; yet, they are all “Austrian” economists. You can change your economic views whilst remaining an Austrian economist.

@Anarchist Cain

Well your retort was that I was claiming the belief that no one can criticize Rothbardians without first establishing a set of concepts was changing the argument from incomplete to no knowledge.

I barely understand your argument. What is your point? Is your point that one cannot both routinely attack other ideologies and not have an established ideology?

[Laughing_Man]

@I. Ryan

The views of Menger and Bohm-Bawerk and Mises and Rothbard and Hoppe are all somewhat different; yet, they are all “Austrian” economists. You can change your economic views whilst remaining an Austrian economist.

In relation to economics. However, I do not discuss economic theory too much [ I think it is over utilized in this group but that is just really a personal preference, I like history and philosophy better ] anyways, much of my arguments towards Giles are purely historical and philosophical.

@I. Ryan

I barely understand your argument. What is your point? Is your point that one cannot both routinely attack other ideologies and not have an established ideology?

In a simplified manner, yes.

[John_Ess]

To be fair, I hardly ever quote Rothbard. I always quote Oscar Wilde instead

“The only thing worse than being Murray Rothbard, is not being Murray Rothbard.”

[Laughing_Man]

@John Ess

“The only thing worse than being Murray Rothbard, is not being Murray Rothbard.”

Did you come up with that or did you quote it from someone else? It is rather humorous.

[Anonymous]

Yes I do find mentors from many competing ideologies. and i consider it healthy.

Alexander the Great was an evil, maniacal, lunatic bent on power… but he built a lot of libraries and did much to further human advancement and cooperation between east and west.

There’s no such thing as absolute

[Laughing_Man]

@Hermes on the day of your death

Yes I do find mentors from many competing ideologies. and i consider it healthy.

I call it illogical. Whom are you to support in States Rights vs. Federal Rights? Federalists or Anti-Federalists?

@Hermes on the day of your death

Alexander the Great was an evil, maniacal, lunatic bent on power… but he built a lot of libraries and did much to further human advancement and cooperation between east and west.

And the Romans conquered a large portion of the world…but hey I’m sure they were nice guys and we can veil their misdeeds by adding grandeur to them.

@Hermes on the day of your death

There’s no such thing as absolute

By saying there is no absolute you are in fact making an absolute. Take a lesson from the Greek skeptics and state ‘well there seem to be no absolutes in world’ instead of defientively stating there are none and thereby making one.

[Stephen_Forde]

@GilesStratton

Remember, going into a debate, if you have Rothbard on your side, you are a priori correct. However, to ensure your victory in a debate, you can follow the lead of your masters Rothbard and Hoppe have set the standard for debate. If you want to “knock down” your opponent, take the following steps:

1. Post your argument, be somewhat kind, if condescending. If the person disagrees with you, they’re wrong, so it’s warranted. Don’t bother with sources, you can just make claims and if the person disagrees with your claims, they’re wrong. Make sure you litter your post with Rothbard quotes, he was never wrong, so it stands to reason that quoting him mean you are never wrong. Don’t bother with any other writers, you can invoke the God that Rothbard is. All other economists/ philosophers/ historians are nothing compared to that intellectual giant.
2. Usually the statists won’t be swayed by Rothbard’s infallible arguments, if so then move on to the next step. If they do come to agreement, you’ve won, GJ.
3. If the person disagrees, don’t bother reading their argument in depth or charitably, it’s just not worth it. The returns are too low, you’d be better off reading The Ethics of Liberty for the fifth time. Simply take the following steps: repeat your arguments, be even more condescending, on those issues where they disagree use italics and exclamation marks!!! Make sure you underline the fact that everything you say is a priori. IF YOU REALLY NEED TO ADD CAPS FOR EFFECT, TO LET THEM KNOW THAT YOU ARE CORRECT, AND YOU KNOW IT. Meanwhile add yet more Rothbard quotations.
4. If they agree with you following this, good job, if not move to the next step.
5. If they still disagree keep asking how it is they they can’t understand your perfect logic, it came from Rothbard after all. Questions such as “HOW CAN YOU NOT SEE THIS!?” and statements such as “it’s so OBVIOUS!!” will make sure they’re persuaded. Remember: you are correct, they are wrong. That is all there is too it. Don’t give a charitable reading to their argument, if they look like they’re saying something that makes sense, twist it. Purposefully if need be, you can’t let third parties by persuaded by their moral blackness. Next they’ll be denying that “A = A”. We can’t let it get there. if it looks like they’re not making any sense, don’t bother trying to make any sense out of it, they’re wrong. AND YOU KNOW IT!
6. By this stage, we’re probably working with a lost cause. Be sure to let them and any third parties know it. Don’t hesitate to point out that they’re statists!!! Even if they call themselves anarchists, anybody who disagrees with you (about a uniform code of law, for example) is a statist. They’re trying to destroy the movement. DO NOT LET THEM.
7. Remember, a statist is the worst insult you can call somebody. Statists are always a priori wrong and evil. If they say things that contradict you, use any of the following insults (they’re all synonomous at the end of the day): statist, Keynesian, monetarist, commie, socialist, positivist, empiricist, marxist, minarchist (and any more you can think of).
8. Challenge them personally, remember, if they disagree with you, it’s because it’s already personal. Your logic is perfect, don’t let anybody challenge that. If they disagree with you, don’t hesitate to imply that they’re on the pay roll of the state, and as a result, they would support it! Tell them that they’re a priori evil. Next take their character into account: they’re weak, they’re compromisers, they’re blind, they’re arrogant, they’re ignorant, they’re stupid, they’re misguided, they lack integrity, they’re parasites (that’s a really good one). They’re all of these a priori, and perhaps some more. Tell them that you wouldn’t let them near your children, they’re socialists, so they’d kill your children at any chance they have. They’ll also steal your furniture.
9. Once we’re at this stage, they’re not going to be convinced. It’s time for damage control. This part is difficult, so it’s difficult to get this down to a science. However, if they advocate something, they’re caught in a performative contradiction, they’re denying that “A = A”, they’re denying that they’re men qua men, they’re denying that man’s life is the standard of value, they’re denying your right to life, they’re saying that smoking is immoral, they’re pro FRB, they’re in favour of fraud, they’re a conservative, they’re a commie, they’re murderers, they’re denying REASON, they want to destroy civilization, they’re government hacks, they’re state lackeys etc.

A few more, general, pointers:

• There are no “fellow travelers”, you’re a lone wolf. You can’t be compromised, you’re a scholar advancing liberty. Forget monetarists, free bankers, public choice theorists, institutional economists.
• You are the true heir to Menger, there is only one line of thought faithful to his vision. Forget other “strands” of Austrian economics, they’re heretics. They plan on bringing down the Austrian church school.
• Anybody who doesn’t entirely agree, must come into line, lest they be purged.
• Anybody who disagrees with your intepretation of Mises is wrong. Rothbard knew him better than anybody, better than his PhD students such as Kirzner even.
• EVERY CRITICISM IS A STRAWMAN.
• If you don’t know something or can’t find some facts, make it up, if it agrees with Rothbardian theory, it’s true anyway.
• Don’t allow any criticisms or Rothbard, he was the One, he should be appreciated.

Allowed Authors:

• Rothbard, all works.
• Rand, all works (read carefully though)
• Hoppe, all works (read carefully though)
• Block, all works

Authors who should be avoided:

• Mises (he can be ambiguous)
• Hayek (he’s a commie)
• Boettke (heretic)
• Selgin (he’s in the employment of the FRS)
• White (see above)
• Yeager (he denied that Rothbard supported argumentation ethics, thus catching himself in a PERFORMATIVE CONTRADICTION!)
• James Buchanan (he said the state was voluntary)
• Gordon Tullock (see above)
• Don Lavoie (I didn’t want to name him, the fewer people that read this black sheep the better)
• Steven Horwitz (see above)
• Dave Prychitko (see above)
• Israel Kirzner (he’s OK, but he disagrees with Rothbard)
• All other economics (they’re evil, state apologists and just not as good as Rothbard).

Now for some quotes:

@THE ONE

"It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a ‘dismal science.’ But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance

What he really meant

@THE ONE

It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a ‘dismal science.’ But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while disagreeing with me."

ZINGGGG

I can think of a few who deserve this.