No no no, the Non Agression Principle is not a book. It is one of the axioms that Libertarianism is built upon. Here is a quote from Murray Rothbard which I think sums it up well.
This is where Libertarians have a problem. Using force to take away people’s money, with the threat of jail if you do not comply. Another problem is the government monopolies in the areas of justice and education. I will just mention one big problem with a government monopoly of justice, since I know you have a lot of reading to do.
Monopoly of Justice - War on Drugs. A medical/social problem which is made illegal, taking illegal drugs (or hell, holding them), is not a crime. This falls under the bigger category of victimless crimes. This also leads to many unintended consequences of creating a black market, more money shifting towards criminals, arresting many people who have not done any crime (for example, possession of marijuana), more money needs to be spent on keeping these “criminals” in jail.
Also, I remember there was a HUGE topic talking about free riders a while back, but I can’t seem to find it using the search (if someone else could help find a link to that topic it would be great).
I would also like to state (if you haven’t noticed yet), that many of us are anarchists, so it might be tough to swallow a lot of what we are saying. Hell, I had a pretty tough time becoming anarchist when I first found Mises.org, and I was an extreme minarchist (I was just stuck on the environment, police/courts, and slightly stuck on roads).
Thanks for being a good sport about this, and hope you are having fun reading The Myth of National Defense, that one is on my book list as well, although I have some others I want to read before it.
Okay, that’s a start, but I think you could do yourself a service by looking up the concepts of Reciprocity in ethics (consequentalism). As well as possibly even virtue based ethics (deontological ethics I believe…it’s called.), to help yourself to a deeper understanding of the issues. Ethics for me comes easy as for whatever reason I can read individuals and groups of people sorta like open books. I can figure out their general motives, possibly even get some more detailed clues to the actual motives. And so on. Basically, I’ve figured in my own life experiences well before I even read a single line of Ayn Rand or that of the Austrian economists that the best solution for all humankind is to leave well alone and only reciprocate what is given (good and bad). Anything else, maybe excluding self-interest, is fluff; pure and simple.
I believe the term utopian doesn’t mean what you and I would think it means. It’s not ‘no-place’, I think EUotpia is that term. Anyways, assuming the modern use of the term utopia, I think part of the problem with your argument here is that you’re mixing the Platonic (unspoken) conception of perfection. Something is, but something isn’t perfect. I don’t think you’ll disagree on that point either, but rather that I think the application of what would be assumed to be the form of any political/economic system has nothing to do with perfection and has everything to do with how it actually pans out.
So, I never take the ‘utopian’ stance. I simply take the logical stance that our civilization is at a crossroads in which the cost of top-down economic systems of management is outstripping the planet’s own natural ‘sinks.’ Either, the top-down systems go or we as a species go, as it seems to me. The Austrian system of economics, seems to me, is grasping that point. Their conception of ethics and their conception of actions to be taken to live by those ethics are equally practical.
For me, you have to make the case that ethics and practical action are exclusive, since for me (being a Randian (Fair warning)) I’ve observed in my own life and in life outside of my own that both ethics and practical action are inclusive.
The problem with such claims of stability is that there has never been any on Earth. Life has changed and continues to change. Humans have changed and still changing. It may suck to hear that, but it’s the canon truth of being alive in this Universe. And no amount of variation of economic theories (of any kind) can avoid change. All one can do is adapt. As such, I believe the plea to any collectives that are unnecessary is very much a fatal to the believer more than anyone else. As it is the believer who becomes the sacrifical animal for the weakest and the most incompetant. No one who can do well should ever do for others and for less. To make them do so or to beg of them pardon are both crimes without redemption in my eyes (as it is the plea to steal a part of another’s life).
Ultimately, it comes down to this basic principle: to live on Earth one must understand what makes it so and to never assume what others tell you is the truth (you have to learn on your own even when reading books…). And to state otherwise, I believe is fundamentally flawed, and is the root cause of all sorts of collectivism.
Any pleas to collectivism are fundamentally flawed. You have to look at the individual actions and the individual consequences therein. Crimes happen to individuals, thus their measures are individual, not collective. So, yes, philosophy is always important as it is the field manual of life. To claim you have none is to claim you haven’t even thought about what’s your favorite ice cream.
I’m not sure, I haven’t read much from Mises, other than excerpts tbh. I’m mostly a Hayek-head.
Deontological ethics is any system that looks at the rightness or wrongness of acts with no regard to their consequences.
Virtue-based ethics is a system which ignores the rightness or wrongness of each specific act, and focuses only on the potential contribution any act could have towards cultivating certain stated virtues.
I believe Kant has written some good stuff on both of these.
Who enforces this rule? In human society we use government. In Austrian society you will use markets, insurance companies, and PDA’s, everyone of which will have the primary motive of profit. They will do ‘justice’ for profit. And I believe because of man’s selfish nature, this will never work. When you mix money with justice you will have problems. The Austrian utopians believe it will all work itself out, that corrupt pda’s and justice/judges would receive less business. But what happens if majorities of people like corruption, because it allows them to get out of trouble by throwing money at the problem? (see Mexico)
I think the more realist group of Austrians (you can pick the labels) are the ones who think yes it will be a wild west shoot em up, no courts, no lawyers, self reliant type society. I think of the Michigan Militia types, the ones EAGER to take all those guns and target practice they have been doing for years, and “prove” themselves in this austrian/anarcy society. If they are willing to accept the world will be bloodthirsty and dangerous place, I think they are at least being realistic and I respect their personal freedom above everything mantra.
I am perfectly ok with legalizing all drugs.
Taking drugs does lead to negative externalities. A big one I think Austrians would appreciate, would be lost productivity and inefficency. I don’t know what else to say tweekers and PCP psychotic episode, because of the high level of diversity in Austrian theory, where one might argue “shoot them”, and others might argue that private rehibilitaion clinics.
In democracy you can vote to legalize things. Drugs are not Constituionally protected or outlawed, so laws can easily change about them. Its actually a simple device and brings about bloodless and civil change. Another option would be moving. This is exactly how it would work in Austrian socities, if you don’t like a place, move - your free - well that is a possibility in the world today as well.
Did some skimming last night. I already thought of the perfect for profit corporation, that would simultaneously destroy the society.
No I don’t. Maybe there is truth out there, I have just not seen any empirical evidence to suggest there is one unchangeable truth. Perhaps there is. For example if String theory holds any validity, perhaps, there are multiple universes where 1+1=3 or Pi. I refuse to accept any a priori, as they are all only relative to current observations and limited experiences. Its like Newtons laws of motion. They were INCREDIBLE, they could accuratly predict a large number of confusing phenoms in the world. Then one day we discovered the theory had problems, so it was replaced with Einsteins theorys. Which have further been changed by quantom mechanics, and quantom mechanics are amazingly accurate. However they don’t work in certain scenarios (read Big Bang), and thus even quantom mechanics which seems to have near perfect accuracy and predictibility, is UNTRUE.
And before you dismiss Rorty, you might want to read about it. (Not that I believe Rorty = truth)
You seem to be implying that bottom-up systems will work.
I agree in the sense, that the levels of consumption of some nations can not continue. America might not be able to enjoy its level of consumption, and certainly not with todays technology. As more and more nations build demand for limited resources, problems are going to arise. However, technology could overcome the problem as it has solved many many perceived problems in the past. (see Malthusian)
One of my favorite quotes is from the Buddha. “Believe nothing, no matter who has said it, even if I have said it, unless it meets with your own reason and understanding.” (Paraphrasing)
[
Hayek was a social saftey-netter. ( I believed that and had it confirmed here, as I have not read Hayek since I earned my pol sci degree)
You’re obsessed with “empirical evidence”. Do you want “empirical evidence” of the law of contradiction too? Or are you bright enough to realize that without the law of contradiction, direct observational evidence cannot even get off the ground as a form of knowledge? Perhaps you should descend into solipsism, though. Even inferential forms of reasoning are a priori in their nature. There is no empirical warrant for an inference’s validity. A priori does not mean “infallible” by the way.
In such universes one would be merely playing with symbols, not changing the substantive mathematical truth advanced. BTW, since you “refuse” to accept any a priori, do you refuse to accept the law of contradiction? It’s one of those unobservables that empirical evidence presupposes to actually do any work… meaning even the statement you made above is either a priori or merely a matter of direct observation (remember: inferences are not permitted), so one must ask which direct observation would that be? Or is it just one of those groundless, unjustified assertions?
Which is to say man is fallible. Fascinating. Anything you want to inform us philosophers of that we’ve not heard before?
Unfortunately, it is only a response to that of me defending myself from inane fallacies. Nothing of substance has ever been addressed in terms of the arguments and evidence put forward.
Do you think you have the mental faculty to admit you are / were wrong, have you ever been? i.e in terms of Keynesian being an ideology built on flawed premises? Or are you just going to continue to attempt to defend the school of thought, regardless of rationale?
I respect the fact you have a lot too respond to. I just find it frustrating that I present some remarkably reasonable material, that in my opinion, destroys the 3rd point of your opening post and the best I get in return is a fallacious, irrational, emotional response.
Anyway, not going to play on this any further - just thought I’d point this all out. Thanks. Carry on. [Y]
Good luck with the “Myth of national defense”. Why not read some of the better works though? In terms of addressing the fundamental flaws of Keynesian economics from the Austrian perspective. Wouldn’t that be more productive? Or simple openers such as, “Economics in One Lesson” by Hazlitt, “What Has Government Done to our Money?” by Murray Rothbard.
Those and many more audio books, lectures, entire books are available for free in pdf form in their respective sections. Enjoy. [:)]
Yes you do. You believe that there is no truth, but to hold that belief then you must believe that to be TRUE. Thus your position is self refuting. Or as Jon said do you think the law of contradiction needs empirical justification?
I read your snarky comment which I believe you are entitled too, and it made me think of a conversation I had last night while I was catching up on the days news. (When not using the internet and reading the journal, post, and times, I spam flip between cnn, msnbc, fox, and the various business channels)
I was talking with a long time friend who is now a lobbyist, and one of his clients wants to get into commerical banking for access to TARP funds. (Stop THERE, I think it is sickening as well, and he knows its corrupt and bad, but he wants to get PAID) Anyway, the conversation was just about catching up, he moved to Vegas and we were discussing that and other things.
I mentioned that I was spending too much free time debating, what are essentially anarchists and variations. He thought it was a horrible waste of time, as he thinks all your ideas are stupid and tantamount to arguing with believers in unicorns. So we go back to discussing his new job and how is was trying to get a meet with Elizabeth Warren or one of her subordinates. Then we were discussing and laughing about the idea of an AnCap debating economic policy with her and all the other major power brokers of this nation. The notion is absurd.
So inspite of the fact that 99%+ of all people involved in the economic decisions made in the most powerful economic powerhouse in the history of the world, believe that your on par with UFO hunters and Loch Ness enthusists, I do not.
I think there are a lot of valid ideas to be learned (read stolen) and I try to do it in a civil manner without being snarky. You also might consider, that maybe all those people with those fancy degrees know something you don’t and maybe you should try something other than Kool-Aid for a while.
That has separate issues, i..e. why should anyone see this statement as valid? What grounds are there for doing so? If it’s mere convention, there isn’t much force to it.
I distinctly remeber it being on the blog as a revelation by one of the people who helped take care of him when he was older. I don’t mean it so much as a verification of a system as much as showing the fact that individuals’ political opinions change and Hayek is not exception. In fact, Hayek did not even condemn central banking at first.
I stated numerous times I didn’t want to debate philosophy. A discussion on the validity of economic models quickly devolves into me having to explaing to you that according to some string theorists, there is not mathematial truth, and that the math and physics as we know it may be totally different, not the symbols, the MATH. At this point we are soo far off-topic and not advancing a dialogue on economics any further. I dont’ want to debate what we can not test. Do others exist? Can I act, for whom am I acting? Is there a giant spegetti monster who decided my every action for me?
Lets assume that your austrian theory of philosophy is the most moral and greatest and most utilitarian and fair and any other adjective you wish to use. I will give you that. So that being said, can your perfect theory of morality and philosophy work in the real world and what empirical evidence do you have to suggest it will. I will even accept your empirical evidence in the form of real world examples or math, without questiong if it exists or its all a dream of a matrix like reality.
Is that why not a single Austrian here likes to do the math why they don’t submit data to counter Keynsians models? Because your only objective is the philosophical debate? IF so, why get hung up on economics and not go debate thesists, utilitarians, relativists etc? Why so much hatred of Keynes, when you seem to really be debating empiricism the belief in states? There are lots of math obsessed Keynesians who dont’ give a damn about States, they only care about solving a complex mathmatical problem. There are large numbers would be ok with an anarchy society, if they could just figure out the slopes and variables.
Thus you can give no justifiable reason why you hold that position.
Why do you assume that a priori statements don’t say anything meaningful about the world- how about statements which cannot be denied without self refutation, such as the axiom of action or Aristotelian inductive statements.
Before debating a subject one needs to discuss the nature of the subject and how it is to be analysed. If you cannot get the method right the truth value of your answers are indeterminate. It’s like saying tin cans are unopenable whilst only using a plastic fork.
This kind of analysis needs to be done for all subjects and the fact this isn’t done explicitly in most places demonstrates the severe problems with modern teaching methods and consequently scientific work.
Why don’t you expand on that? A lot of assertions circulating around maths and physics stem from a deep misunderstanding of what various newer discoveries in physics actually entail.
Here’s a suggestion: how about the state let people secede and try it for themselves, rather than dictating what lives they are to lead? There are works on past anarchist/quasi-anarchist/minarchist societies, but until we’re actually allowed to secede and go try one, I doubt anyone will be satisfied. That also goes for the massive swathes of empty land states hold to and claim title to.
Look, if you’re going to make philosophical assertions which do not hold up you will get called on it. I study philosophy, so it happens to be one area I am competent at. If you don’t like it then don’t discuss it. If you want to debate economics in detail, ask Jimmy or David to do so.
What “hatred” of Keynes? You seem awfully sensitive to criticisms of him… and as for them, if they want to do applied maths, they can. Their lack of concern for questions outside of their domain is their own problem, certainly not mine.
//Before debating a subject one needs to discuss the nature of the subject and how it is to be analysed. If you cannot get the method right the truth value of your answers are indeterminate. It’s like saying tin cans are unopenable whilst only using a plastic fork. //
it is rather Orwellian to suggest that only one method should be used to do research on a subject such as economics.