Caley, enough with the petty swipes.
Well here I differ from Molyneux, as it seems to me that philosophy itself is ideology.
No, it is too broad a term to be an ideology, it may state things ideologically (this is debatable), but it is not an ideology.
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.
If someone was to state creationsim, communism, ancient space aliens, etc were true and then make a video based off of these assumptions, without arguing for or against them, and then proceed to frame things in such heterodox terms would you have a problem with it?
The fact is, it would be heterodox to picture primitive societies as libertarian the way the word is used here, or to assume that applying a psycho analysis of people throughout history under government had some relationship to cattle. The burden is on the heterodox thought, that is the way it works; the “State as farms” video did not meet the task to be taken as anything other than a propaganda video. It is a “hook” video, something to get one interested; an introduction to arguments maybe, but it argues nothing.
At best it can cause some personal insight of one’s relationship of government to themselves today (much like reading a good poem); but it supplies no actual sociology, history, economics, or philosophy that can be spoken of (personally, I would even suggest that thinking of this video in such terms would lead to poor conclusions in each of those fields). This can clearly be shown by the plethora of value statements and weasel words thrown throughout the entire video.
Petty swipes? No. This is petty swipes.
How is it necessarily too broad a term? Or how is “ideology” too narrow a term?
Remember, all definitions are inherently arbitrary.
Depends on what you mean by “have a problem with it”. Also, what do you mean by “heterodox”?
So what if it’s “heterodox”? Can you even demonstrate how it must be?
It seems to me that this invocation of “heterodoxy” is just an argumentum ad populum.
How are you defining “actual sociology”, “actual history”, “actual economics”, and “actual philosophy” in the above? Which parts of the video do you take to be “value statements” and/or “weasel words” (however you take those to mean)?
Let’s get your attempts to reduce my status and credibility out of the way before we engage in anything substantive.
Oh, you mean you didn’t want anything you wrote in that initial post to be challenged by anyone? So sorry.
Yes, I think that’s just about the only sensible conclusion one can draw from the opening line of my post. Any other possible interpretation of that line such as “I really didn’t want this to get to the stage where we’re quote bombing and one liner exchanges” would be far too charitable!
Well, to be perfectly honest, I’d be more receptive if you weren’t so snide and secretive about it.
I don’t think I’ve been secretive or snide about anything, actually, I’d like to think that just the opposite is true. My original post was a series of thoughts, in with no particular ordering, that came to me whilst watching the video in the OP, as we’re on the internet there’s always going to be some level of misunderstanding. But at every instance I’ve made it quite clear that I’m willing to spell out exactly what it is that I meant to anybody who misunderstands.
If that is snide or secretive than you and I must you using very different definitions.
I see. So you weren’t actually making an argument here. You just wanted to offer a purely emotional statement. Am I right?
I was offering my personal opinion of the guy, I think there’s a commonly accepted definition of the word “nuts” that goes somewhere along the lines of “being detached from reality” and I think he fits it rather well. So, actually, it was a factual statement about the state of SM’s mental health. That said, it wasn’t related to the debate on other issues such as those brought up by SM in the video, so it doesn’t fit the requirements for the ad hominem fallacy.
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.
Because, nobody on this forum has ever expressed their opinion about the mental health, intelligence or motives of anybody these disagree with.
By the way, I posted the above passage because it did a nice job explaining how people commonly misuse the phrase “ad hominem”, not because I wanted to call you “stupid” or “delicate”, though, even if I did I wouldn’t be committing the fallacy in question.
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 think you’re going to have to flesh this out, I’m not sure if I understand or if you’ve understand me. Although, yes I do believe that some form of government is welfare maximising and yes I do believe it is necessary for society, in a world where markets functioned perfectly I don’t think we’d need government but markets can sometimes function very badly (an analogous case can be made for government, by the way). The above is a normative statement, the story SM tells about governments being full of bad people is a positive statement and the two don’t necessarily contradict each other, that’s all I was saying.
And no, there isn’t an is-ought problem to contend with, if you’d read a welfare economics textbook you’d know that they explicitly start with a few normative principles of values and work from there, they don’t ever try to derive “ought” statements from “is” statements.
“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.
The Industrial Revolution has been under interpretation for many a year now, with economic historians still disagreeing over it’s exact causes and what it looked like. I’ll agree to the above definition though because from my limited reading (a few books, a textbook and a few papers) it seems generally correct to me. But if you expect me to do what economic historians haven’t been able to do, be prepared for disappointment.
Wow! You’re not sure what makes the Industrial Revolution different from any other period of small but persistently positive rate of economic growth? I think it takes quite something to have a debate about economic history without knowing the basics are. What distinguishes it economically? The fact that it was the first time in the history of human civilization that we managed a sustained rate of growth and was a period during which many important technological innovations were made that laid the foundations for modern day growth in the western world.
As for causes, am I sold on a particular explanation, no. But there are a few that I find interesting, quoting Oded Galor:
And here’s Edward Glaeser summarizing other explanations
And again this time focusing on Gregory Clark’s explanation:
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.
Well, I’d say this is a good definition “Governance is the activity of governing. It relates to decisions that define expectations, grant power, or verify performance.”
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governance
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)?
Actually, it’s talking of a move from characteristics of society that were true for hundreds of thousands of years prior to 1700 to a move for a very small subset of countries to the characteristics of modern day societies. Yes, of course the cause matters, but that isn’t a debate that’s been settled yet.
See here http://www.econ.brown.edu/fac/oded_galor/galor%20interview%20dec-17-2007.pdf for one good explanation, Gregory Clark’s work and Joel Mokyr’s work for two other good explanations or discussions.
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.
Well, in that case, I’m going to have to argue that SM’s theory is clearly wrong. We cannot have been farm animals for the state for the past thousands of years because the dinosaurs were running amok and destroying human society before 1945 when they were finally eradicated. It would have been impossible for the state to function, much less function so well, with all these dinosaurs causing trouble all over the place.
I’ll get to the rest later.
size of the population, while population size affected the rate of technological
progress. The size of the population determined the supply of, and demands for,
ideas. It also influenced the diffusion of ideas, the degree of specialisation in the
production process that stimulated ‘learning by doing’,11 and the level of international
trade that further fostered technological progress. At the same time, the rate of
technological progress and its effect on the resource constraint, enabled population
growth.
During the Malthusian epoch technological progress permitted an increase in the
size of the population, while population size affected the rate of technological
progress. The size of the population determined the supply of, and demands for,
ideas. It also influenced the diffusion of ideas, the degree of specialisation in the
production process that stimulated ‘learning by doing’,11 and the level of international
trade that further fostered technological progress. At the same time, the rate of
technological progress and its effect on the resource constraint, enabled population
growth.
During the Malthusian epoch technological progress permitted an increase in the
size of the population, while population size affected the rate of technological
progress. The size of the population determined the supply of, and demands for,
ideas. It also influenced the diffusion of ideas, the degree of specialisation in the
production process that stimulated ‘learning by doing’,11 and the level of international
trade that further fostered technological progress. At the same time, the rate of
technological progress and its effect on the resource constraint, enabled population
growth.
During the Malthusian epoch technological progress permitted an increase in the
size of the population, while population size affected the rate of technological
progress. The size of the population determined the supply of, and demands for,
ideas. It also influenced the diffusion of ideas, the degree of specialisation in the
production process that stimulated ‘learning by doing’,11 and the level of international
trade that further fostered technological progress. At the same time, the rate of
technological progress and its effect on the resource constraint, enabled population
growth.
Remember, all definitions are inherently arbitrary.
This seems to be the core of your posts, so I’ll just address this for now. Sure, that is correct. However, I am in no mood to play the word skeptic game at the moment, as I just don’t think it is important to anything I’ve said. If I make the comment “here is my hand” 999/1000 times I simply do not wish to be questioned on “the existential nature of being” or “what ownership really means”, etc. This is an extremely unprofitable and uphill battle for any of my intentions on this thread, and I am not Sisyphus. I am prepared to use any definitions from any encyclopedia, wikipedia, or school 101 textbook you wish to use.
If my words are that cryptic, as they appear to be, than it would be best if the both of us disengage in the current discussion.
And no, “heterodox” is not a bad word. I consider myself heterodox on many things, including economics. I just recognize if I say the sky is green and not blue, it is up to me to state why.
Rewatch the video. That is not what stef is aiming at. His appeal is to an universalist problem, the general class divisive(wolves, lambs) nature of society being the problem.
You are wrong. re-watch the video yourself. Stef does not claim that the problem of an elite class being parasitic of a working class is universal and inevitable, rather that it is widespread and historically dominant . Stef is an anarchist isn’t he?
Stef is an anarchist isn’t he?
I think the argument she has going is that he can’t be, due to the way he defines and views the nature of things. I could be wrong, but that is how I read it.
But what is the evidence for this? what xarthax finds is ‘implied’ in the video? what xarthax ‘feels’ when watching it?
That I can’t tell you, I was just trying to point out that calling him an anarchist to xarthax at this point in the discussion may be counterproductive to the argument at hand.
Anyway, this isn’t my discussion and in trying to help I may have just added unwarranted confusion.
Yes, the projec
Yes, the projection of attitude of Stef’s is what paradoxically seems to be implying statist premise
He’d say that, in his childhood, he has gone thorough the same traumas that’d make almost everyone else a statist.