I know what I would value more.
Praxeology and Austrianism is an apriori discipline. I care not for empirical data when it comes to the social sciences.
I think the ‘free rider’ problem is an irrelevant one since we are all essentially free riders based on us living off the last generations capital, knowledge and wealth accumulation.
Because it is impractical not to use them. I value private roads higher then I would public roads which is the reason why I advocate for such a system. However, to terrorize public roads and commit sabotage against them is immature and useless, plus I could be very well transgressing the NAP if I should do such a thing.
However, since we estabished that you value the state in the sense that it provides goods, then do you theorize that the state should always be around to ensure this service or do you think that people should come together and establish government in order to get these services?
You’ve spent plenty of time on this site opining about morality of drugs and sexual orientation, now suddenly your tongue is caught short?
Answer the question. Do you or do you not support the state?
Lay any false claims to rest by elucidating your opinion where all may see it.
I’m not sure how to answer that, honestly. I don’t see the sense in willingly supporting the state. That being said, I can’t make others care about it. If Giles honestly doesn’t care, that’s his business.
I’ve answered this question, you’re just not content with my answer. The difference between minarchy and anarchy is indifferent to me, I can’t say I’m particularly fond of big government, but beyond that I’m not sure I can say much. Considerably less so when it comes to normative judgements as opposed to my own subjective value judgements. My rejection of big government is mainly the result of my Christianity. But as I said, I don’t concern myself with such questions. For me the economic implications government are far more relevant than the normative aspects.
As for drugs etc. I don’t think I’ve made any moral claims regarding the use of drugs or whatever other cultural issue I’ve spoken of. If you believe I have, please, provide evidence.
Yes, Mises did believe a priorism was the correct way to go about the social sciences. But nowhere does Austrianism deny the relevance of empirical evidence when it comes to applied economics. Unless you wish to go so far as to say that Rothbard could have written America’s Great Depression without consulting the statistics for money supply, interest rates etc your position is without substance. Nowhere have I contradicted Mises whose claim was that evidence cannot “falsify” theory, only illustrate it. Your objection is wholly without substance.
Unless, of course, you want me to start quoting Theory and History.
Once again, I don’t see what your objection is. I merely offered an example that I thought would not be objectionable to a self described Rothbardians. Look, you follow the words of Roderick Long quite closely. In which case I’m going to assume you believe in public property under “anarcho capitalism”. If I’m correct, you’re going to have to come up with some way of governing these commons. This means you’ll have to deal with various problems commonly associated with public goods.
Simply blurting out that we’re all free riders doesn’t solve this problem, nor does it make it go away.
You’ve entirely missed my point. Yes, maybe you believe that the opportunity cost implied in state provision of goods is higher than the benefit (and as a rule, so do I). But, you’ve not answered my original objection, which was that if you believe in demonstrated preference, a methodological precept of Austrianism, then the very fact that you use the roads implies you value them.
No, I don’t think the state is necessary to provide any services. I think the voluntary interactions of individuals does a good, but not perfect, job. On the other hand, I’m not sure what you mean by “government”, which can mean a coercive state or simply some mechanism with which the commons may be governed.
Neutrality would be giles not arguing against something which he obviously is.
Is that a yes or a no? Do you or do you not support the state?
It’s neither. What’s your favourite town of under 1000 people in the Algarve?
Why do you care if Giles supports the state or not ? Who gives a damn. At any rate Giles has made clear he’s not interested in freedom - isn’t that enough ?
Every move you make at this point, leads to a checkmate.
If you don’t reply, you lose the capacity to criticize libertarians for their political views (including me, yipee!), and suffer a massive loss of credibility.
If you reply that you are anti-state, you lose the capacity to be self-righteous about your parasitism and claims to positive outcomes arising from state shenanigans.
If you reply that you are pro-state, you lose credibility as a free market and Austrian economist.
I have to admit, I am lousy at chess, but saw this outcome a half dozen moves ago.
Your turn.
yes he did… to be more exact he said he doesn’t give a damn about liberty…
LS, I see. You may be right
On the other hand, it seems to me that people like Giles simply won’t admit defeat. They are not honest enough.
Well, it is interesting that in order to engage in so called ‘value free’ science one needs to unconditionally stick to values…like honesty.
outstanding point!
But that wasn’t honest. It was even less honest than his current attempt at dodging a direct question.
Giles loves liberty. Giles is about his liberty, and if it comes at your expense, all the better.
true… true…
I don’t want Giles to admit he is wrong or defeated. But he as positioned himself in a no-win scenario by holding the positions he claims to hold. Even if he is right, and believes 100% in his positions, there are consequences. Intellectual opportunity costs.
He can’t have it both ways anymore. He’ll have to decide. If he chooses indecision or absention, he removes himself from a great many debates.
checkmate =]
OK, let me respond to the three alternatives in turn.
If I don’t reply, why can’t I criticize libertarians for their views? If I see a logical fallacy, I won’t hesitate to point it out. The fact that I have no clearly defined, systematic views on the issue myself has no bearing on whether or not my insights on the issue are correct. This said, I generally don’t criticize libertarians political views, rather I dislike the ways in which they go about “spreading” their ideas. I also criticize the impact these views have on economic science, which is value free. As for my credibility, that’s a strong claim to make. I don’t think it quite follows that because I have no clearly defined political views at this stage of my life that I’m not a credible source on other issues, as far as I’m aware neither Menger nor Bohm-Bawerk wrote about political issues, Strigl and Wieser were socialists. Are these authors not to be taken seriously bewcause of it?
As for whether or not I’m anti-state. I think you need to be more clear about what you mean. I’m anti state in the sense that I subjectively dislike some aspects of the state. But I don’t have any defined normative views on the state and it’s alleged illegitmacy. As for your claim of “positive outcomes”, that’s really ambiguous. I don’t think that there are, in the long run, any positive economic results from state intervention in the economy. What I do know is that I subjectively value state provision of science. As for the normative aspect, you know what I think already.
I don’t see why being pro-state would mean a loss of credibility as an Austrian economist (which I wouldn’t consider myself anyway, I’m still an undergraduate student after all). Mises stressed, following Weber, that economic science is value free. There would be nothing wrong with an Austrian economist/ Virginia School economist realizing all the flaws of socialism and yet still advocating communism on normative grounds.
That said, I still choose the first of three. Your turn, I suppose.
I don’t consider that this has any bearing on the issue, but are you denying that economic science is indeed value free, thus contradicting Weber, Mises, Rothbard and every Austrian since? In any case, you’re argument rests on an equivocation, in one wishes to engage in science (read, one values science) then one should value honesty as a means. This makes no claims about what ends one wishes to acheive.
I believe Blaug and Weber have already clarified this.
Besides being, to some extent, a strawman, this rests on an equivocation that would destroy your own position. Yes, I value liberty in the sense that I enjoy being able to pursue my own value. On the other hand, this by no means implies that I should value liberty in the political sense.