What is the argument about? The applicability of a metaphor?
What is the argument about? The applicability of a metaphor?
Yes, in regards to an outlook for sociology, history, and psychology. That is what I am discussing. I suppose as more of a bad way to view those subjects in light of the metaphor, than the metaphor as a metaphor unto itself. Good question.
It’s as I said filc, my point were in varying generality, I think some were pretty specific to the video, others less so. Apologies if that’s not what the type of discussion you intended to generate when you started the topic, I didn’t mean to drag things off course, but that’s just the way these things work I guess. Let me repeat myself, if you have any specific concerns about any of the points I raised relating to the video, feel free to ask for clarification, if you don’t feel like doing so, by all means don’t.
Sieben, I understand your position and thank you for the clarifications.
William, I think you nailed two of the points I was trying to make.
Caleb, then please, do myself (and apparently everybody else) a favor and begin leading by example.
Trying to explain anything with metaphors without a literal version is a bad idea.
As i read it, it was not a metaphore for history, sociology, and society but a metaphore of the state and its nature. The State, being of a more concrete nature, as an actual existing organization. As such, it is not a metaphore of a metaphore. Though I may be misunderstanding you.
I know this happened a few days ago, but I couldn’t pass it up:
Here we get to the heart of the dispute. Filc accounts for morality. Edmund Carlyle does not. He prefers the Hobbesian “war of all against all”.
So to Edmund Carlyle, I must ask: why do you discount morality? Can you prove it doesn’t exist (i.e. in people’s minds)?
Irrelevant (non sequitur), ad hominem, bare assertion.
The existence of any normative justification does not mean said justification must therefore be followed by everyone.
Define “governance”. Then support the “matter of fact”.
Perhaps you’d like to note where he uses the term “erroneously”.
Also, “methodological” is an adjective, grammatically speaking. That means it cannot be defined as a noun, such as “discussion”. So I suggest you review the commonly accepted definition of “methodology”. (I say “commonly accepted definition” because all definitions are inherently arbitrary.)
Can you support this?
What’s your definition of “industrial revolution”?
What “huge demographic transition” are you talking about? I’m not trying to say there was none; I’m merely asking for you to back up your bare assertions.
Do you really think he was talking about intellectuals across the board? Somehow I doubt he was. Perhaps you realize this and are simply trying to make Molyneux look dumber by implicitly using different semantics from his. This is known as intellectual dishonesty.
I agree with you that the reasoning does seem to be flawed here.
Sorry, I wasn’t aware that the rest of us are all supposed to be content in watching you pat yourself on the back, over and over.
In other words, you’re making statements that rely on implicit information that you yourself are aware of, but that the rest of us may not be. So what are your real intentions here?
Depends on the definition of “owned” being used, doesn’t it?
Depends on how one defines both “state capitalism” and “free range farms”. Of course, it goes without saying that the concept of “enemy” predates Homo sapiens sapiens.
Profits are ultimately subjective because values are subjective. Not saying you’re wrong here, just offering food for thought.
Do you need evidence? Wouldn’t you be more productive as a serf if you believed you weren’t one?
So is pragmatism.
Why are you taking exception to this, exactly? Or are we all supposed to be able to read your mind?
Yet you have, by and large, failed to support the alleged poorness of his arguments and positions with either logic or evidence. Again, are you expecting us to read your mind and read between the lines? Or is this just an ego-stroke for yourself? If the latter, why bother to do it in front of us?
My problem with this argument is that it’s just a simple assertion, with very little backing in reason. An assertion that basically states that all men are inherently violent beings. They are anti-social, as opposed to social.
The assumption is that people voluntarily trade because they are too scared to risk coercion. My assumption on the other hand has been that people in general recognize the benefits of mutual-cooperation. There is no proof or evidence that the assertion you presented is factual based, instead it’s only an assumption regarding the subjective mindset of each trader. But there is no objective evidence otherwise. On the other hand there is economic incentive to avoid violence. So for me, to hear someone claim that all mutual trade occurs simply out of fear of taking a risk is just silly. I don’t naively and incorrectly assume that all men are violent in nature.
Here are my reasons for being reasonable.
If Billy is built larger and more muscular then Bob, and Billy is in a position to extort from Bob with little effort, your assertion does not explain why Billy continues with mutual exchange with Bob. Even ignoring morality. There are more occasions where Billy and Bob continue along a long history of mutual exchange.
One reason might be that Billy recognizes that he is more wealthy in the long run by treating Bob respectfully and not destroying that relationship. If Billy tried to take advantage of Bob and steal from him, but Bob may be wise and never place himself in that situation again. As such Billy may never have the benefit from the mutual exchange ever again. Also Bob may move away, and Billy wouldn’t even have anyone to steal from either. As such Billy is overall poorer.
When you consider the benefits of the division of labor, and comparative advantage, well then mutual exchange makes a lot more sense. If on the other hand you think every man has a predisposition to be violent, and is only benevolent because the state is keeping him in line. Well if you believe that, I could see why most economic teachings makes very little sense.
Thievery is a thing of time preference, not a thing of inherent human evilness(whatever that means).
I am not saying you believe these things Autolykos, just to those in general who try to present that argument. People like Bloom and Rettoper come ti mind.
There is a more detailed description in Chapter 8, in HA by Mises. Bob just gives us a nice summary.
Well, a distinction is clearly justified - the ruling elites are the Kobe Bryants/Tiger Woods of war-making and rent-seeking. But all the same, the Prince is not to the masses as the rancher is to his cattle. Kobe Bryant is extraordinarily good at basketball and Tiger Woods is extraordinarily good at golf but I can still make a basket and whack a golf ball into a hole. The rent-seeking elites that comprise the kernel of the State do it better than anybody else but their perch is far from permanent (just look at the historical record, it is littered with the corpses of kings and emperors).
Clayton -
I see now that Autolykos’s response was a clarification of Edmumds position. I understand you were not directing an argument at me. So my above post would be directed at Edmumds position.
Sorry for the confusion.
Oh, how I really didn’t want it to get to this stage…
Irrelevant (non sequitur), ad hominem, bare assertion.
Actually, before you start the usual internet game of throwing around the names of various logical fallacies, you might want to make sure that you’re doing it correctly.
From here: http://plover.net/~bonds/adhominem.html
My opening line was just my expression of a personal opinion on the guy, I think he’s a little crazy and can come across as obnoxious in his videos and his online posting. Perhaps you disagree, that’s fine, but please stop trying to invoke logical fallacies that aren’t really there in order to undermine my status/ credibility.
The existence of any normative justification does not mean said justification must therefore be followed by everyone
Well, that’s quite obvious. But it’s also besides the point which is something I’ve already clarified, namely, even if we grant the validity of SM’s grand theory of history, that doesn’t mean some form of government isn’t welfare maximising or necessary for society. Like I said, as a matter of fact SM could be right (I don’t think he is) when he claims that the state is run by some small group of elites who dominate the population, doesn’t mean we don’t benefit from it anyway.
Define “governance”. Then support the “matter of fact”.
Once again, this is a really simple point, and actually one I’d like to think most libertarians would agree with. As a “matter of fact” coercion (in the libertarian sense of the word) was around for a long time before the neolithic revolution. It’s a mistake to think that tribal societies were in any way libertarian, they were fairly communistic.
Perhaps you’d like to note where he uses the term “erroneously”.
Also, “methodological” is an adjective, grammatically speaking. That means it cannot be defined as a noun, such as “discussion”. So I suggest you review the commonly accepted definition of “methodology”. (I say “commonly accepted definition” because all definitions are inherently arbitrary.)
This was really just a minor nit-pick that you’ve decided to pick up on for some reason.
From the American Heritage Dictionary quote here: http://organizationsandmarkets.com/2007/04/07/method-versus-methodology/
Can you support this?
Can I literally support the argument “it is in SM’s interest to acquaint himself with Malthus?” I doubt it. But I do think that if he’s making sweeping claims about economic history he should address one of the standard theories in the field, yes. By which I mean, he attributes lower standards of living in the pre-industrial world to poor “livestock management techniques”, when there’s a great deal of (disputed) evidence that actually lack of population control was the cause of poor living standards, any increases in productivity were quickly negated up by increases in population. By the way, when I say disputed, it’s actually pretty generally accepted that Malthusian forces were the cause of a lot of stagnation in living standards, the question is whether they suffice to explain it.
SM’s theory just doesn’t fit the facts as well as many other arguments do.
What’s your definition of “industrial revolution”?
Well, I suppose I’d go somewhere along these lines, here’s an except from Tyler Cowen’s review of Gregory Clark’s Farewell to Alms (found here:http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/02/business/02scene.html?ex=1320123600&en=45c0cd3f64070ad2&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss)
Bold is mine.
What “huge demographic transition” are you talking about? I’m not trying to say there was none; I’m merely asking for you to back up your bare assertions.
Here’s Greoory Clark: http://www.cepr.org/meets/wkcn/1/1679/papers/Alter-Clark_Chapter.pdf
By the way, these “bare assertions” of mine aren’t bare assertions. I’m actually just referring to generally accepted historical facts, I can’t help but feel that once again, you’re nitpicking to undermine my credibility, the fact that you go on to accuse me of intellectual dishonesty is laughable.
Do you really think he was talking about intellectuals across the board? Somehow I doubt he was. Perhaps you realize this and are simply trying to make Molyneux look dumber by implicitly using different semantics from his. This is known as intellectual dishonesty.
I’m not trying to make Molyneux look dumber, to the extent that this issue actually matters to me it’s because of personal reasons that I mentioned above (my father is a PhD economist, and quite frankly I don’t think he’s a shill for the state). More importantly, it’s just an inaccuracy in SM’s video, which was posted here to generate discussion (although, I’m beginning to feel that it was posted here to generate agreement.)
If SM did not mean intellectuals across the board, then it’s his job to clarify what he means. But two things thought come to my mind right now, SM has been highly critical of even the most ardent libertarian intellectuals (Rothbard, Mises and Hoppe) and that the reality is very far away from being intellectuals across the board. To the extent that his argument applies, a few conditions need to hold a) the academics in question need to make arguments in favor of expanding the state (rules out almost all natural scientists, a whole lot of economists and a number of other intellectuals in other social sciences) b) they need to be well paid relative to their investment in human capital and to the opportunity cost of working in the private sector (rules out almost all but the top sociologists and political scientists, and a significant quantity of economists) and c) their opinion or academic work needs to have some sway with the public (rules out almost all economists, after all, how many lay people justify QE with DSGE?).
So yeah, actually, SM’s argument fits the facts pretty poorly. Just seems like something of a smear to me since out of all economists I can think of the above three conditions only hold for Krugman and DeLong.
Sorry, I wasn’t aware that the rest of us are all supposed to be content in watching you pat yourself on the back, over and over.
In other words, you’re making statements that rely on implicit information that you yourself are aware of, but that the rest of us may not be. So what are your real intentions here?
Maybe I was patting myself on the back, I doubt it though, since I went on to admit that I was probably being a little pedantic in the next post.
But my real intentions? Probably to signal that I’m intelligent and well read, but in that case I’m not too differently from most human beings, we all do it to some extent without realising. More seriously, if SM wants to attribute all economic growth (which now I’m not sure he was) to entrepreneurs, that’s fine. But there’s a whole lot of economics that says he’s wrong, which is what I meant by “I think he should do his homework”.
Depends on the definition of “owned” being used, doesn’t it?
Absolutely, all the more reason that SM should a) be clear about his definitions, b) try and find some justification for that definition and c) should try and find empirical evidence that the general population think they’re owned according to his definition.
Which is exactly my point and my complaint, there’s lot of armchair psychology and sweeping statements in the video, very little scientific reasoning.
Profits are ultimately subjective because values are subjective. Not saying you’re wrong here, just offering food for thought.
Once again, I agree, and this issue came up earlier when I said that academics do have a good life insofar as they’re allowed to do what they presumably enjoy, research. But I think if we’re going to make significant claims about how some monolithic state is controlling the population for their own personal benefit we should be explicit about what these values are, we can’t get it 100% correct but maybe we can determine the importance of values such as preservation of custom, fairness, equality, comfort, religious concerns etc.
I don’t necessarily deny that politicians are generally self interested, I just don’t think that government is nearly as monolithic as SM claims, policy is generally the result of different competing interests whether they be voters, bureaucrats, elected officials or lobbyists. Each of these different groups have different allocation of resources and preferences and even politicians may value equality, fairness and the like.
So as I said, it’s important to be explicit about what we believe the value system of governments to look like, so we can check it against the facts. Because the theory of “government” being some profit maximise is both kinda nonsensical and empirically wrong.
Do you need evidence? Wouldn’t you be more productive as a serf if you believed you weren’t one?
I addressed this earlier, I wouldn’t be surprised if SM was correct here, and I wouldn’t be surprised if there was some literature that exists that documents it. But until I’m presented with this evidence I feel more comfortable explaining these facts in terms of economic arguments about incentives and the like.
So is pragmatism.
Possibly, I don’t want to argue this point. But either way, if libertarianism is an ideology, it makes no sense to define it as a synonym for philosophy and an antonym for ideology. Which was my original point, a lot of the definitions he uses are really arbitrary and not commonly used by others in that sense. More generally, I think this is a problem with libertarianism (and I mean this as a suggestion, not a criticism), a lot of definitions are used in senses that may be historically accurate but certainly aren’t used that way in contemporary discourse.
Why are you taking exception to this, exactly? Or are we all supposed to be able to read your mind?
I just found it amusing actually, nothing else. I found it kind of similar to when my middle aged male micro teacher decided to make a joke about “kinky preferences” to a class of twenty something year old undergrads.
Yet you have, by and large, failed to support the alleged poorness of his arguments and positions with either logic or evidence
Well, I hope I’ve done more to that end in this post (and other subsequent posts). I think there’s actually common ground here on the two most substantive points, maybe I’m wrong, but either way I think we’d both benefit if you were a little more receptive to what I had to say.
The fact that that the absoluteness of states are farms made for extracting wealth from their generators is so strictly true, and so well agreed upon by libertarians, actually implies the inherent failure of anarcho-capitalism.
You see, it is the same thing as complaining about god being our supreme unjustified overlord, and using that as an appeal to attempt to abolish god. Well guess what, it is impossible. Gods(state’s) power is strictly true, if the concept of absolute power(state power) is accepted as a premise in the first place.
So instead, the anarchist line consistent with realist perception of the state, would be to claim the state to not be this supreme organisation with a concrete end, organised at attaining it, but a mishmash of anarchy instead.
This doesn’t make sense can you elaborate without committing a logical fallacy? The statement above does not follow.
I’m not arguing that Ancap has been proven to work, has been disproven, or even does work. I’m just pointing out that your argument doesn’t follow logically.
The other problem with your argument is the incomparability of the two. God and the state are different. One is metaphysical, the other is not. One you have a choice to follow, the other you do not. So it’s unclear what your trying to accomplish here.
Cool non sequitur bro!
If this thread has demonstrated anything, it is that very few anarchists actually understand the nature of the state. Lumping them all together is erroneous.
The common thing a
Sorry for dud-posts.. Lacking Opera support.
The Molyneux-ist appeal to absoluteness of state is the mental creation of a rule set: the set of rulers, and set of ruled. That very assumption, the premise of such groups existing, implies impossibility of anarchism. Claiming otherwise would be same as the socialist utopians - that the social hierarchal premises are subject to alteration.
That very assumption, the premise of such groups existing, implies impossibility of anarchism.
The recognition of the existence of something is not an argument for its eternal existence.
check yourself before you wreck yourself.
chiggity check
Oh, you mean you didn’t want anything you wrote in that initial post to be challenged by anyone? So sorry.
I see. So you weren’t actually making an argument here. You just wanted to offer a purely emotional statement. Am I right?
Well, sorry, but I figured you were actually trying to argue stuff, like everyone else in this thread is (or seems to be). Perhaps you’d do well to warn us the next time you want to debate-but-not-debate.
In other words, yes I did think the logical fallacy was actually there. Now you imply that I’m either being stupid or “delicate” in calling you out on it. You are compounding the problem.
Are you implying that some form of government is welfare-maximizing or necessary for society? Because if you are, I’ll just point back to my earlier statement. If it’s as obvious as you say it is, you should have no problem distinguishing positive from normative statements. There’s also that little is-ought problem to contend with.
I couldn’t care less whether “most libertarians” agree with what ever “really simple” point you’re making (or claiming to make). Get it? Otherwise it seems you’re subtly trying to appeal to the majority and arguing ad hominem at the same time (i.e. “Most other libertarians get it, so why can’t you, hmm?”).
With that said, you have yet to explicitly provide your definition of “governance”. Once again, definitions are inherently arbitrary. I’d like to know whatever definition you’re using.
I couldn’t care less whether you think it’s “really just a minor nit-pick”. You defined “methodological”, an adjective, as if it were a noun. That’s grammatically incorrect and therefore your whole point is invalidated.
Then perhaps you should make a better (read: actually valid) argument.
So can you provide such evidence or not? “Actually pretty generally accepted” means nothing to me here.
I don’t know what (all of) the “facts” are here, whether they’re what you’re claiming as facts or the actual facts (whatever they may be). And no, I’m not going to take your bare assertions on faith because you happen to be an economist in training.
“Somewhere along these lines”? Can you commit to a definition or not? We can’t have you equivocating all over the place, now can we?
The definition you seem to be wavering on, namely “a small but persistently positive rate of [economic?] growth starting around the 17th century”, says nothing about the cause of such growth. Does that not matter to you? Otherwise, I’m not sure what besides point-in-time distinguishes the “Industrial Revolution” from any other period(s) of small but persistently positive rate of [economic?] growth.
So the “huge demographic transition” you’re talking about is going from the characteristics of European societies in 1700 to their characteristics in 1870? And what caused this “huge demographic transition”? Or does that not matter once again (i.e. it’s all about missing the forest for the trees)?
What you consider to be “generally accepted”, historical “facts” or otherwise, has no affect on me whatsoever. I will continue to “nitpick” as I deem necessary.
Can you support the claim that “almost all” natural scientists don’t make arguments in favor of expanding the state? To say nothing of “a whole lot of” economists and “a number of” other intellectuals in other social scientists.
Can you explain what you mean by “well paid relative to their investment in human capital and to the opportunity cost of working in the private sector”? Note that here you’ll have to explain what (you think) is their investment in human capital and also the opportunity cost of working in the private sector.
Can you explain what you mean by “have some sway with the public”?
Until you provide further explanation here, I (personally) remain skeptical that Molyneux was necessarily smearing intellectuals as a “class”.
Maybe, but you doubt it? Make up your mind. Either you were or you weren’t. Which is it?
Signal to whom, pray tell?
Just because “a whole lot of economics” says he’s wrong doesn’t mean he is wrong, does it?
I agree that he should be clear about his definitions and that he should try to find empirical evidence to support his claims based on those definitions. However, definitions need not be justified, as they’re inherently arbitrary.
Importance of such values to whom, exactly? My point was that different values can lead to different “livestock management methods”, if you will.
Wait, I think I get it. You’re saying that it’s more useful to be explicit about what those values are and how they differ. Am I right? If so, I would agree.
Of course, the government isn’t a monolith. It consists of millions of individuals. However, they’re not all equal in terms of authority within the government. As with any other hierarchical organization, most of them have little authority, and a few have a lot. It seems more useful, then, to pay more attention to motivations and values of the few at/near the top than all of the “worker bees” at/near the bottom.
One rule of government policy-setting seems to be getting/doing the most you can with the least amount of effort. In the political arena, “effort” includes resistance on the part of those being taxed. Does that make sense?
I guess I’m kinda baffled as to why you’d need evidence for this. Because to me it seems self-explanatory.
Too late. Can you provide any reasoning or evidence that proves or demonstrates that pragmatism cannot be an ideology?
Well here I differ from Molyneux, as it seems to me that philosophy itself is ideology.
Again, definitions are all arbitrary. Just because one’s definitions aren’t commonly used by others doesn’t mean they can’t be used.
I do agree, however, that it’s useful to understand the evolution of semantics over time. For example, I recently investigated an alternative definition of “government”, one that seems more widely used than the typical libertarian definition. Neither definition is correct, of course, but I found that, under the more “popular” definition of “government”, anarcho-capitalists aren’t anti-government at all!
I see. So it wasn’t a point against him or anything.
Well, to be perfectly honest, I’d be more receptive if you weren’t so snide and secretive about it.
You should have taken my advice from page two.