Saluton!

Hi. I’m a bit of a dissident here: a left-libertarian mutualist, albeit one with an affinity for Austrian School economic thought.

Things I like: music, swimming, philosophy, linguistics, economics, extraterritorial law, laissez-faire socialism, bioregionalism, youth liberation, Stirnerite egoism

Things I dislike: prejudice of any sort, dogmatism, statism, intellecutal property, limited-liability corporations


Hopefully, we can have a productive discussion on liberty, as opposed to a shouting match about “ebil soshulistz steelin teh freedomz”.

Welcome to the forum!

Welcome to the forums. I hope, too, you can have a productive experience here. I’m still relatively new here myself, however I’ve taken on the Anarcho-Capitalist’s side. Did you have something specific you wanted to talk discuss?

There is at least one performative contradiction in here, maybe two.

Welcome. We need mutualists who understand AE, because we don’t have any here right now.

@Free Radicals, not really. I guess there’s always how I think “anarcho-capitalism” is an incredibly unfortunate term for propertarian anti-statism.

@Liberty Student, what performative contradiction is there in disliking any sort of prejudice? If it’s that I’m being prejudiced against prejudice, there’s 2 main problems with that:

  1. “Prejudice” implies irrationality. You’re presuming that I don’t have a good justification.

  2. How can one be “prejudiced” against an idea?

That’s why we have “voluntaryism”.

Yes.

I thought you were into AE? All prejudice is rational.

???

  1. Good… can you drop “ancap”, then? It’s an utterly bizarre term leading to all sorts of semantic confusion.

  2. All prejudice is rational? The guys waving the “God Hates Fags” signs are rational? The KKK are rational? Or are they not “real” prejudiced people?

  3. What the hell in Austrian economics says “all prejudice is rational”?

  4. OK, I guess you can be prejudiced against an idea, but how do you know I am?

@ vaguelyhumanoid:

I believe that LS is simply impling that all human action is rational from the reference point of the actor, even if seems irrational to us.

It depends what you mean by rational. Does it imply objective or subjective value?

Human action is necessarily always rational. The term “rational action” is
therefore pleonastic and must be rejected as such. When applied to the ultimate
ends of action, the terms rational and irrational are inappropriate and meaningless.
The ultimate end of action is always the satisfaction of some desires of the
acting man. Since nobody is in a position to substitute his own value judgments
for those of the acting individual, it is vain to pass judgment on other people’s
aims and volitions. No man is qualified to declare what would make another
man happier or less discontented.

Rationality and Irrationality; Subjectivism and Objectivity
of Praxeological Research

http://mises.org/books/humanaction.pdf

I am not the cult leader this month but I will bring it up at our next annual shareholder meeting.

Praxeology. See JD’s responses.

You told me. You said you are prejudiced against prejudice of any sort.

hopefully by joining the forums, you can learn about Austrian Econ.,

Sigh.

The way Mises defines rationality - as behavior using means to achieve ends - isn’t the same as (1) most people in day to day conversations use it and (2) isn’t the only way to comprehend the word. Prejudice, in the Misesian sense, is, of course, rational: it’s a conscience application of the human mind. In another sense - a sense more commonly used - one could call prejudice ‘irrational’, because it (supposedly) is based on a lack of comprehension and understanding of certain relationships. Just like doing a rain dance is rational in the Misesian sense, but a lot of people would call it ‘irrational’.

  1. What if someone makes the wrong assumption about what will satisfy their subjective desires?

  2. I didn’t say I was prejudiced against prejudice, I said I disliked prejudice. You’re distorting my statement to make me look like I’m saying something totally nonsensical when I’m not.

@vaguelyhumanoid

to answer your first question, then people will adjust their value scale to meet their desired ends

“Things I dislike: prejudice of any sort”

You judge prejudice (dislike) before you know what the prejudice is. What if I say I am prejudiced against rape? What if I say I am prejudiced against rotten tomatoes? What if I say I am prejudiced against the state?

Humans don’t function “rationally” by being impartial. Everyone has a bias, everyone prejudges because perfect knowledge is not possible.

If you had said prejudice of certain sorts, ok, that makes sense. You’re judging the prejudgment on its merits. But you said of any sort, which means you had prejudged other people’s prejudgments. And frankly my good sir, people prejudge, as you did in your OP when you assumed that you’d get the

“ebil soshulistz steelin teh freedomz”

response.

@Vaguelyhumanoid.

Replace prejudice with “Preference” and you will see why people have a hard time following you.(I being one of them)

If what you mean by prejudice is:

  • To make a judgment about an individual or group of individuals on the basis of their social, physical or cultural characteristics.

It would be extremely naive of me to assume you don’t practice preferences to some degree along those lines. (We all do, it’s part of being human) It’s what makes a world culturally rich, and not a dull state of affairs where we are all exactly the same.

I guess my terminology was badly chosen. I meant discrimination against people for race, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, age, religion (criticizing religion doesn’t count as prejudice), etc.

vaguelyhumanoid wrote the following post at :

I guess my terminology was badly chosen. I meant discrimination against people for race, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, age, religion (criticizing religion doesn’t count as prejudice), etc.

Though most of us would share your dislike for discrimination we must keep in mind that such a strategy of prejudice was probably socially optimal to our ancestors. It possible that our distant ancestors saw less than 100 humanoids in a lifetime and thus all the more reason to be suspicious of anyone who doesn’t resemble their bodily color, etc. It was only with increased population density that we developed a different set of prejudices, but such genetic factors are not easily swept away with “I have a dream” speeches

I’m quite aware of how difficult it is to put an end to discrimination. However, it should still be pursued, albeit through voluntary means.