Okay, you disagree with Rothbard. Thank you for this!
I like CAPS and italics.
Quick Ban, but then undone… hmmm,…?.. Thanks? And sry for my crass respone; the validity of it holds true in my opinion. But it was juvenile and unbecoming.
Let me ask you this; reagan/clinton dereg leads to Enron… true or false? And Im talking about the energy scandal that wasnt on at 11pm, not the subsequent paper shredding the news coverd.
Are you asking me ? False anyways.
No it doesn’t.
The social sciences are philosophy, history, psychology, sociology, political science, law, anthropology, geography, economics and linguistics. So it is not simply ethics and economics.
Then what is the disagreement?
The scientific divisions that those terms imply are arbitrary.
Hi Cain.
What do you find objectionable about Mises’s utiltarianism?
Establishment implies static.
How so?
Utilitarianism is unstable.
What do you mean unstable?
If you are a act utilitarian then you can justify the most heinous things
If you are a rule utilitarian then you actually stop being a consequencialist.
I think exterminating redheads is needed to maintain ‘social peace’ - if redheads are not killed ASAP there may be riots and the division of labor will suffer.
The word “established” does imply “static” or “somewhat static”. The definition of “established” is (1) to bring into being on a firm or stable basis or (2) to bring about permanently or (3) to fix unalterably.
However, the above disagree is irrelevant with respect to the overall disagreement.
A question will have an infinite number of incorrect answers; however, a question will have only one or a few correct answers. Therefore, to shoot down other arguments is much easier than to form your own argument. Therefore, to criticize other ideologies is much easier than to form your own ideology.
For example, sociology is merely a misguided field that believes both that social issues are fundamentally different than fiscal issues and that the study of human action should be mostly empirical.
To define many of those terms is very difficult. What is the definition of “philosophy”? What is the definition of “political science”?
Or ‘I think by establishing a state we are making more people happy and secure then by not having a state’
Firmness does not imply static
And why are we talking about what is easy? We are talking about what one can do.
Isn’t that an argument against just classifying the social sciences in just two division of ethics or economics?
Of course. The only people who complain about the state are a bunch of unsophisticated libertarians.
Here is the definition of “established”:
The definition of “established” is (1) to bring into being on a firm or stable basis or (2) to bring about permanently or (3) to fix unalterably."
To fix unalterably and to bring out permanently implies that it is static. To bring into being on a stable basis implies that it is somewhat static.
Are you serious? If some thing is easy, then you can do it.
No.
Utilitarianism is unstable because:
-
if a person is one type of utilitarian, then this leads to or is constitutive of something X.
-
if a person is another type of utilitarian, then this leads to or is constitutive of something Y.
Utilitarianism is unstable because choosing different versions of it leads to or is constitutive of different things ?
Also, what type of utilitarian is/was Mises, and how would this conception of things apply to him?
To establish something doesn’t make it permanent.
Easy is subjective. Your argument has gone from claiming I fail to differenciate between incomplete and no knowledge to…well its easy to criticize therefore we can all do it.
Explain how announcing the high level of incapability of definitions concerning several disciplines is not an argument against classifying the social science into two fields.
Mises was a ‘rule utilitarian’ who supported voluntary exchange, prosperity and non-aggression.