Warning, radical libertarian idea up ahead!
Maybe we should just avoid tyrannical institutions instead of trying to manage their tyrannical aspirations?
This is just entirely misinformed. First, communism and libertarianism aren’t analogous, so to compare them makes no sense. Communism is an economic structure, libertarianism is a moral philosophy. Anarchism/Libertarianism(the same thing) is the only morally consistent position, which means that, Communism, as an economic system, is ONLY a morally consistent/superior in the context of libertarianism.
Too bad the very existence of government creates the dichotomy of “rulers” and “ruled.” Unfortunately for your position, rulers always have more power to tyrannize than simply “haves”
And to do that, it steals wealth from you. K.
Good luck. The founding fathers tried this and didn’t end up so well…sounds rather utopian to me.
You’re kidding right. Acting on the behalf of the majority inherently means acting at the expense of the minority(how the fuck is outlawing prostitution not squashing the rights of minorities? I guess you only own yourself if the majority wants you to..). When you take a vote on something that always means that some people will want the action, and some won’t(unless it’s unanimous). Those that won’t are ALWAYS getting their rights squashed. There’s also the problem of where the government derives its power to act in such a way.
Multiquote thread:
What % of economists (read PhD in economics) do you believe are of the Austrian school? The joke part of my statement was claiming it was all due to Keynes, but I can honestly say I have never met an Austrian economist and I go to economic conventions about every two years.
So the “small minority” was actually compliment as I doubt they make up that many.
I don’t know how familiar with Marx, the father of communism, you are, but if you analyize all his work, at the heart or center is the main moral argument. Nothing epitomises Marx better than “from each according blah blah to each blah blah”. This IS a moral position. That man should strive to work hard to improve the human condition and this includes helping those who are unable to help themselves. Its a Utopian dream. All men spend their lives trying to improve the world for man. It is exactly what Jesus was saying and Jesus was no economist, he was a moralist. (I am an aethist)
Many of the rebuttals to my, quick explanation, all have to do with the Utopian mindset, one of which I can argue against, the other I can NOT.
-
Libertarianism is a moral philosophy is based on the premise that more freedom = more moral. I don’t agree with that premise. But if I were to accept it, and it sure seems lovely (read Utopian), then I could not argue against it because it is Utopia and I never argue Utopia would be bad or immoral.
-
There is no historical example in the entire history of man, where one group was not trying to subjegate another. There seems to be a Utopian dream here, that if we just removed governments, free market mechanisms would make this go away. “The PDA’s, and the 100% perfectly informed, and 100% educated citizenry would rise up and stop any attempt… blah blah”. = Utopia. I see no empirical evidence to support this thesis.
THUS, I think humans have to choose the least offensive and most libertarian model that will allow the most freedom with the most ‘order’. (This word might send some of you into a frenzy, but dont’ overreact, my vocabulary is just failing me currently)
I think the American government model has done a good job of allowing as much freedom as possible while preventing others from bringing harm or ruin to your lives. I am sometimes baffled as to what it is that makes some libertarians soo angry. If you live in the US, your standard of living, level of freedom, and ability to be a capitalist is at the highest levels in human history. [ Here is my elitest rant: I believe that many people are drawn to libertarianism because they are failures or racists. Economically they are doing poorly because of their own lack of ability and/or education and like all humans, feel the need to blame that ‘boogyman’ who they feel is causing it all. I think these forums are an exception to the economic failures and probably have a lot of people seeking intellecutal understanding and higher order thinking. But clearly you have some of the racist populations here who need to point the finger at someone for their failings, and in this case its the Government and Jewish Bankers]
I am currently out of time and will try to respond to some of the interesting questions many of you raised.
Ixtellor
Argumentum ad populum much?
Had I stated that all of Keynes theories were correct because most economists subscribed you would be correct.
But I said that most economists prefer Keynes arguments to Austrians, which is true.
I believe I also avoided the argumentum ad verecundiam as well as argumentum ad antiquitatem.
If there is empirical evidence to suggest that Austrian economy theory can accuratly and consistantly predict economic phenom, then I will instantly throw Keynes away and follow the empirical evidence.
But since there has never been, and never will foreseeably be a society without coersion, then Austrians can always blame ‘coersion’ for their failures of prediction. (Like Evangelicals who can blame everything on us not being Christy enough - if only we were all 100% devout christians, then their predictions would come true)
Ixtellor-+
Ixtellor,
In the few posts I’ve read you seem to very hot on prediction and empirical evidence. Could you tell me what theory you use to interpret the data and justify that system?
As someone else already tried to explain, libertarianism is a moral philosophy. Regardless of the empirical evidence of Austrian economics, libertarianism is the superior moral philosophy since it is the most consistent political philosophy.
The argument is in essence that you cannot prove that government intervention is “better” than non-government intervention. As such, given that all adult humans have property rights and the ability to reason, as such the ability to grant or withold consent, any actions the government takes without consent is violating the property rights of said person.
As such, we do not say we were coerced, we say our property rights were violated, and that it is wrong for anyone to do so, whether a criminal or a government employee, which in our minds, are one and the same.
An Austrian economist can never “predict” an economic cycle in the same light as prediction in the physical sciences. An economist can truly only give a qualitative analysis of the economy, and at best this is only an analysis, not a prediction, But if you think that Austrians have never predicted economic cycles you obviousy weren’t reading sites like mises.org, or lewrockwell.com in Januaray for analyses there, written when most didn’t dare utter the word: “recession”, follow like the economy’s script hitherto. Also, do you not realize that Mises himself did not accept a position in a large, profitable bank around 1928 because he didn’t want his name associated with the coming recession that his analysis predicted.
You’re confused, I think. Yeah, ignoring Austrian econ isn’t restricted to Keynes. I was referring more to the “having dealt with it” part, as opposed to conveniently ignoring it. And no, I don’t really give a damn about what PHDs churned out of university factories think these days.
I think you’re wasting our time here. Do you have anything of substance to add?
But then we’d be mimicking the Keynesian Church, now wouldn’t we? The Keynesians can always blame some other factor for the failure of their predictions or the breakdown of their theories. Martin Hollis (not an Austrian, FYI) likens positivist economics to oracular pronouncements with a Delphic tinge to them. He’s dead on, I think. You see, as the positivists here it is precisely the Keynesians who have reason to urge that some particular event did not “disconfirm” their theory for X, Y or Z reasons, and not the Austrians, who don’t place much faith in quantitative prediction in the social sciences anyway. So the situation is, as it were, the reverse of what you stated. Pity, that.
When it comes to predicting economic changes Austrians have you beat on the current crises(RON PAUL, PETER SCHIFF AND A LOT MORE), the Great Depression(MISES, MISES, MISES), stagflation and the breakdown of Bretton Woods(HAZLITT ESP.). I’m waiting for the sound of your Keynes books falling out the window!
If you have a link or source that shows an Austrian predicted the current decline in GDP within a small margin I would very much like to read it. Or any paper that accuratly predicted exhange rates, unemployment rates, trade deficits, inflation rates, etc, I would like to read those as well. I highly doubt Ron Paul said anything more substantial then ‘recession or spoke vagely about economic problems’.
I understand that Austrians put ZERO faith in the scientific process and its application to economics because of your Hisenberg uncertianty principle, which is probably quite valid to a degree (the degree is probably where we differ), but do they publish prediction papers/analysis/thesis/peer reviews?
- So rather than refute the math models of the Monatarists and Keynesians with their own calculations and proofs, you think it is more useful to stay away from higher education and get your “learning on the internet and your own sense of logic?”
I hope this is not an Austrian Majority opinon and many are seeking higher education to ‘prove’ their theories or at the very least, disprove Keynes.
- Your opinion on wasting time is relative. I get a LOT of questions thrown my way and am just trying to answer them.
It seems to me a true Libertarian would either ban me from this private ‘company’ forum, or ignore me, rather than “coerce” me into not posting.
Ixtellor
There are certainly conspiracies. For example; Goldman Sachs and their cronies conspire to control multiple branches of government. There are no secret conspiracies as they seem perfectly willing to be in the news and in fact brag about their success. A few of their multitude conspire to hide their unwillingness to pay small amounts of tax however.
As for anti-Keynesian economic policy; Who is practicing or even suggesting it outside of this organization, the Foundation for an Economic Education, Ron Paul and a few other organizations? Hell even the CATO Institute, known here as STATO, seems to relish their new contact in the halls of power with the big Keynesian power brokers at the Fed and in Congress.
As for arguing pro-Keynesian theory, you will have to contend with Professional Wrestler Kane as he certainly makes more sense than Krugman, the Congress, the administration led by the messiah and either major political party. So good luck. He can kick ass on the blogs and in the squared-circle.
Whatever gave you the impression that I am “staying away” from higher education? No, I meant what I said: I do not defer to PHDs on account of their credentials, and I certainly do not think they possess superior judgement on the whole. Perhaps you ought to give Kuhn a read. And in the end there is only one’s sense of logic (i.e. realizing the validity or not of inferences &c.) to work with anyway…
Neither is necessary as of yet.
I agree, in that if I were to say the PhD’s are right because they areh PhD’s. I base my ‘faith’ in their work, because their work can predict changes in GDP within .75% and to a high degree of accuracy fairly consistantly. If some Austrian were doing it better, I would throw away Keynes and argue that Austrians do it better. I also don’t believe in Jesus just because a lot of PhD theologians say he is real and the son of god. I try not to fall into that logically fallacy trap.
I am happy. I prefer to debate with people who disagree with me, I’m not real big on the Kool Aid enforcement behavior.
Ixtellor
P.S. Would it be Ironic if the 2nd forum I was ever banned from was a Libertarian one? (Only forum ever was a Christian one, where my very very sublte aethists jabs were caught on to.) Not even the english speaking Palastinian forum banned me, inspite of me being [apparently] a zionist dog, co-conspirator, and israeli propagandist.
GDP is a garbage statistic. For all we know, it is telling us how much of our capital we are using up instead of how much capital we are creating.
Indeed, GDP does not account for the creation of capital, which results in a more roundabout structure of production, and the consumption of capital, leading to a less roundabout structure of production. Whether capital is created, or consumed is one of the most major factors of knowing whether an economic upturn is stable, or not.
Also, when the average growth of the economy is 3.00% GDP, a margin of error of 0.75% GDP is substantial, especially since a growth of under 3.00% is technically a growth recession. I have no idea why you would base your faith on economists with that margin of error.
no it would not be ironic, it would be consistant with the moderator exercising their property right
Marxist economics is based upon the evolution of history through dialectical materialism, and the previous Classical economics, especially the labor theory of value. To merely call it a moral system is not correct for it is a true school of economics; the reason why it has been viewed as a system of morality is that there is no other way for a Marxist to defend Marxism.
Keynesians are well aware of GDP’s flaws and write at lenght about them. However, to call it a ‘garbage statistic’…
Do you believe real GDP can give an accurate representation of economic output from year to year and infer/make decisions based on that information?(ex. Can I make accurate statements about the output levels of 1920’s society to 1980’s society in regardes to output and productivity?)
Do you believe real GDP is a good indicator of a particular societys economic output, and in many cases (read western civ) an indicator of relative standard of livings, and economic prosperity?
Do you believe real GDP has strong correlations between most other economic indicators? (ex. Unemployment rate, rising average wages, trade comparisions, productivity per worker, % of populations at tiers of income, etc)
What indicator do Austrians prefer to gauge productivity from one time to another?
Was this all just a way of dodging my question, because Austrian’s don’t calculate predictions? (This does NOT dismiss Austrian theory or disprove its validity) [Has anyone noticed how I continue to say that your theories may be correct and mine may be wrong, that I just like to follow the evidence, while there seems to be a blind faith on some posters parts in Austrian theory]
When you factor in the the difficulty of the task, 300million + individuals making, selling, consuming billions of products, a nay impossible if not herclean task… .75% is beyond amazing. Now the 2-3% margin of hours, that still plague Keynesians is another matter. And if you feel .75% accuracy is horrible, then why can’t Austrian’s do it better? (If they can, you guys are being pretty tight lipped about it)
Ixtellor
Three comments on Marx.
-
I think he was genius in developing the idea that economics explains EVERYTHING. I subscribe to this. Why do Jihadists fly planes into buildings? Economics. Why do girls like Brittany Spears albums? Economics.
-
I am familiar with the works of Marx, and his very dry and painstaking attempt, to demonstrate his theories and analysis on economic systems and their evolution. I think his economic explanations on the transition from feudalism to captialism can be convincing and a useful tool.
-
I think for a real indication of Marx and where he is coming from, it is important to look at the historical time frame, and political and moral influences that affected his work. So I didn’t ‘merely call it a moral system’ I said, I think at the heart of his economic argument is a moral argument and that it was a utopian level morality in which man strives his hardest to improve the world and help fellow man. I think it would be equally dismissive to count our austrian theory based on its economic applications without regarding its moral ones, any too of which seem ideal and something to strive for. When you read about Marx and his ‘visions’ of what a communist society would look like, you are hearing a moral argument.
Ixtellor
P.S. Communism can not work because it fails to accept “Man is inheirantly self interested”, which I firmly subscribe to.