“Non-argument.”
Non response.
“Because the thought-leaders of the world do not yet understand economics and how their own interests would be better served by capitalism.”
Probably because their own interests would not be better served by capitalism. So much for value freedom, haha wow.
Where can these individuals achieve their ends of power in a free society, huh? Where do they get to impose their will on others? How can you possibly contend what their self interests are. You don’t think there are people who want power, just for itself? It’s not an aphrodisiac?
“One is directly pertinent to the audience’s self-interest. The other relies on ideological bias and credulity. The former is therefore far more effective and lasting.”
Both can be directly pertinent to the audiences self-interest. Most people don’t tend to like getting robbed or coerced. Nor continue to hold the metaphorical gun in their hands, which is aimed at their fellow man, once it has been pointed out to them.
“Mostly as posturing and as a mask for desires. There are a lot more people these days who are enamored by the egalitarian/socialist ethos than the libertarian/individualistic ethos. This is mostly because of the underlying self-interest that most people, due to faulty economic doctrines, think would be better served by an interventionist or socialist economy.”
Yeah, thank the state education system for that one. Those that generally adopt egalitarianism / socialism do so out of a sense of justice or idealism. They see oppressors, but blame the wrong concept. Naturally, egalitarianism is a revolt against nature.
“If a population believes that a certain program is moral – i.e. war, welfare, social security and so on – then they may grumble, but they will also roll up their sleeves, get to work and support it no matter what their personal cost. Men will go off to war, mothers will turn their kids over to nannies, people will surrender massive portions of their income and freedom with nary a protest – all in the name of what is good.”
“I probably would.”
That’s a real shame you would prefer coercion to freedom. I agree with Ron Paul, he’d still prefer his liberty.
“What do you mean by that?”
“Invincible.”
“If you were to start a new thread with a summary of the argumentation ethics position, I would respond.”
I believe you mentioned it in another thread. Where you were asked to do the same. Why not post it there, or here?
“Not nearly as much as it would have had the scientific underpinnings of socialism not been shattered (read Hulsmann’s bio for how much it changed the policy atmosphere). Mises’ calculation argument very well may have saved innumerable lives.”
Yeah I know that. I was talking generally, not specifically about him in his time. That was then & was liberty achieved? What does that have to do with now? Do you advocate the strategy of trying to convince the individuals in power, in Washington to convert to laissez faire policies? You support the think tank approach by the likes of CATO? No? Then what does the above add?
How has it affected the central planners goals - of those in power, at all?
“The best antidote against destructive and spurious moralist doctrines is not opposing spurious moralist doctrines. It is the exposure of the spurious natures of the destructive moralist doctrines. Simply ask the socialist moralist, “Why should I give a damn about your value judgments”; there is simply no way the socialist moralist can respond to that without either resorting to twisted sophistry and demagoguery, or casting aside the moralist mask, and get down to the economic questions that really underlie his position.”
You think that would convince them? Interesting. So how I don’t think they’ll find the nihilism so appealing.
“People accept double-standards regarding the state if they think it’s in their interest to do so.”
What is your argument against slavery?
Do you believe that people will accept the risk of wrenching social change for the sake of theoretical economic benefits somewhere down the road?
Why do you think people care about economic efficiency? What of those who completely understand the praxeological considerations, and yet persist that state power is the only way to obtain them? What have you to say? Nothing at all?