you have to be kidding
Is this you playing dumb & innocent again?
So you are blind to sarcasm ?
Not at all.
that’s too bad for you then…
I don’t think so. Ain’t Knott and company illustrating the wonders of ‘praxeology’ ? Well, it doesn’t really look that wonderful to me…
I don’t see how economic understanding is possible without praxeology. what else is there? neo-classicism?positivism?historicism?
say what you like about people that inherit their understanding of philosophy and morality from Mises and others in the Austrian school
this counts for nought against people that inherit their understanding of praxeology and economics from Mises and others in the Austrian school.
I sympathise with your disdain for moral theories grounded differently to your own. yet i urge you to consider slacking off somewhat on those of your peers that, essentially, appraise moral acts along the same lines that you do; yet do this for different reasons (i.e. subjective vs. objective). you need to save up your venom for those anti-libertarians who appraise moral issues incorrectly ; regardless of whether this flows from their flawed subjectivism, or some bizarre construction of ethics that they claim is ‘objective’, though we understand they are mistaken (they are not libertarian).
I think I mentioned that classical liberalism and moral philosophers/economists like, for instance, Bastiat, Molinari, Spencer etc, did well without praxeology ? Hell, when the ‘Austrians’ entered the picture in 1870, classical liberalism was already on the wane and only after a hundred years Rothbard would ‘re-discover’ the basic point made by Molinari in 1850. Mises however never got it…
Praxeology is by no means an all encompassing philosophy that can ‘explain’ ‘human action’ - that’s mostly advertising and self-promotion. Now, some advertising and self-promotion is fine. Too much self-promotion is likely to produce opposite results to those intended…at least as far as I’m concerned.
At this point I don’t think I much care, but I’d point out anyway that I don’t see things the same way utilitarians do. I’m not even sure if ‘we’ arrive to the same conclusions or not. And, frankly, I’m not inclined to trust people who devote their time to undermine common sense morality and want to replace it with their ‘subjectively preferred’ utilitarianism.
Juan,
I banned you for one day for flaming this thread. I warned you about flaming and obstructing civil discussion when you return. In that one precious day of your absence a fascinating conversation among thoughtful, gentlemanly students of human nature emerged in this thread. Yet the instant your ban was lifted, you staggered into that conversation like a drunk uncle at a family gathering, called Adam Knott a liar, attempted to mock me, called the Misesians here cult-members, and brought a discussion, which all participants were thoroughly enjoying, to a screeching halt.
I told you it would be 3 days if you started poisoning the well again, but, given the extent to which you’ve attacked other members here, I’m making it a week.
Are you talking about the origin of A? Such as, using what you said, the basis (origins) of liberty being B? Said again in which liberty is A, thus you are interested in knowing if B is the origin of A? This is good of you to bring this up because for a long time in these forums I’ve said numerous times I’m not discussing the “origins” of natural rights. I consider principles to be circumstances within the medium of the intellect, but this does not say anything about the origins of the principles in and of themselves. For one, I believe in God. Now I don’t discuss what place God has in any of my theorizing for that includes my beliefs and I fully don’t understand what God is. I don’t go around thinking I can define what God is for any one person. God though is something I believe to be a Creator and thus origin of reality, but heck I don’t know all the little details from God to natural rights or from God to how a tree is here. Secondly origins of any principles do belong to matters that are not simply of the intellect but principles are also mediums pointing to aspects of this world that are not only of the intellect. For instance, gravity is not solely of the intellect, yet gravity is identified as a law by the intellect. Intellect applies mediums, it’s own unique tools to convey aspects of reality in the only way intellect knows how to.
What makes libertarianism just rather than unjust is your interest?
Good. At least terms are what they are.[:)]
Yet more evidence for this: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/01/science/01human.html?_r=1&8dpc