I’m aware of what an Ideal Type is - e.g. ‘the ideal bureaucrat is a hard working, rule-following, etc.’ something like this - and I’m aware what class probability is, but ‘class concept’? (If you can give me the reference; I’ve got everything from Mises here, so I should be able to find it.)
I’m also not sure that I completely get the whole of your comment. Could you clarify a bit?
(Oh, and what’s ‘OP’? :?)
If you read the Human Action chapter I linked to in my last post, you should get the idea. And OP means original post.
Gotcha.
Well; given this "concepts of the natural sciences. An ideal type is not a class concept, because its description does not indicate the marks whose presence definitely and unambiguously determines class membership. " I would say that ‘libertarian’ is more like a class concept, but we can have different opinions which would describe the ‘class’.
I don’t think it’s an ideal type; cause it’s not like there is a enumerated list of things that a libertarian ‘should’ have.
What’s your take on it?
When you said:
“Can anyone of you give, out of hand, a solid definition of the word ‘furniture’ that covers everything you would call ‘furniture’? Probably not; but it doesn’t mean that you can’t recognize furniture. With this there are some black and white things (an airplane clearly is not furniture, a couch clearly is) but there is some grey (a closet, a cupboard, a bed…?) In any case; with the word ‘libertarian’ there is something similar.”
you’re obviously not talking about class concepts, which are all about “solid definitions”.
Between the two concepts of an ideal type and a class concept; I’m more inclined to say that ‘libertarian’ is a class concept. But this would be a false choice; I would say that it’s a language game, i.e. something with a more fluent definition, depending on context and person; but in general we all know what it means.
But we could give it a solid definition. It’s just; there is no solid definition commonly accepted (at this point in time) by anyone.
I see what you’re saying now. Thanks.
This is an appeal to authority. It’s a logical fallacy.
Not every one. Some descriptive nouns are vague or general. However, libertarian isn’t one of those words, at least in the LvMI lexicon.
Every act imposes costs. N’est pas?
But he didn’t clearly. And that’s been his tact. To duck and weave.
Which wouldn’t be a big deal, but he has been agitating on ideology in other threads, and invited this sort of scrutiny for deliberately mocking the ideas and passions of others.
As AdrianHealey has insisted, I’ve already provided a definition.
Of course, you’re too consumed by your smear campaign to actually comb or understand my arguments.
Yup.
That’s exactly the sort of personal attack I would expect from somebody who has eschewed logic and reason for their statist agenda!
On a serious note, the behaviour of some moderators on this site is a real shame. It reflects poorly on the quality on this place, which has many insightful and interesting posters. I don’t really think it’s acceptable to accuse somebody of throwing logic and reason out when they’ve proved at every point sincere.
I admit this was poorly worded. My version of “imposed costs” is lifted from J.C. Lester’s Escape from Leviathan: Liberty, Welfare, and Anarchy (a book I can’t recommend enough). Much like Rothbard articulates in Power & Market, costs imposed upon others subverts consent, and thus we can’t easily know if the transaction maximized utility (since voluntariness has been overridden). Insofar as I have a “moral” rule-of-thumb for my conduct, it is: minimize the costs I impose on others.
Oh oh… what was that? We can’t know if the transaction maximized utility?
So after you restlessly defended your incredible “government is efficient” stance for days and almost hundreds of exchanges.. you now start to talk about calculation problems and inefficient outcomes due to lack of consent among some of the actors affected.
You’ve already cut the very branch you were sitting on by rejecting the exact same reason and logic that you now try to use to your advantage.
Let me quote from Chris Martin (who is discussing Stigler’s article “Wealth, and Possibly Liberty”):
Although this is an old article, it still poses a critical challenge for economists who believe in policy advocacy. The old-time religion of economics – going back to Adam Smith – assumes that both individuals and society often adopt misguided policies, which good economic advice can dispel. Against this Stigler argues that agents act to maximize their well-being in both the political and economic spheres. To treat them as mistaken is futile. Whatever “is”, if not perhaps right, at least an equilibrium immovable by “preaching”.
Essentially, I believe rules to maintain consent (i.e., voluntariness) are important innovations to maximize wealth. Customs or even legislation that safeguard private property, for instance, are important to increase prosperity. However, due to high transaction costs, I don’t expect my own preaching (or your own) to make much of a dent in the stable equilibrium we now face. Of course, theorizing is still important (cf. Patri Friedman’s bold mission to have anarcho-capitalistic seasteading).
you pose a critical challenge for economists who believe in advocacy of neo-classical knowledge and method in the realm of understanding economics. The old-time religion of economics – going back to Adam Smith – assumes that both individuals and society often adopt misguided intellectual systems, which good economic advice can dispel. Against this Stigler argues that agents act to maximize their well-being in both the political, economic and scientific/knowledge/education spheres. To treat them as mistaken is futile. Whatever “is (thought)”, if not perhaps right, at least an equilibrium immovable by “preaching”. “education”
Is the behavior not provoked? Aren’t those who are more interested in arguing for the sake of being right, with immediate dismissal of any reason or logic, getting exactly what they’re asking for? It’s no surprise at all that people get frustrated.
No one buys the victim routine, you could dish it out but now you have real issues when asked to defend your own position and premises. I have combed your responses, and repeatedly asked for clarification of your arguments. You have used logical fallacies as we go deeper and deeper. Now you claim that Adrian Healey speaks for you which seems to me to be a convenient way for you to put him between yourself and questions about your position.
Full marks for being clever.
I would like to remind everyone that the questioning of other members’ motives, character, etc, belongs only in the Member Issues Forum. Thank you.