The Austrian School Deception: A Road to Global Genocide

[1billion]

I signed up on the forums for that site, and am trying to get in a conversation with that Nathyn fellow, we will see what happens.

[ladyattis]

Nathyn: Internet’s worse troll.

[liberty_student]

Atta boy. Fight’em over there so we don’t have to fight’em over here.

[1billion]

@ladyattis

Nathyn: Internet’s worse troll.

haha yea

[Knight_of_BAAWA]

@PyrrhonianSkeptic

Well, is the best we can do to these people yell about how they’re “statist trolls” (confirming, in their minds, their conclusions), or can we actually present a positive case for our side, show them their faults, and lessen their self-assurance just a bit?

It is not up to us to disprove their unproven and outlandish claims.

[wombatron]

@Eric

@ladyattis

Nathyn: Internet’s worse troll.

haha yea

Were you around when he was here? It was pretty bad.

[banned]

@ladyattis

Nathyn: Internet’s worse troll.

No, I’ve seen worse. Hell, our pal Victor Aguilar is trolling over there and he’s at least 10x the troll.

[Dondoolee]

@liberty student

@PyrrhonianSkeptic

Well, is the best we can do to these people yell about how they’re “statist trolls” (confirming, in their minds, their conclusions), or can we actually present a positive case for our side, show them their faults, and lessen their self-assurance just a bit?

Sure, go for it!

Every week, people sign up and demand or request that people here write refutations (actually a couple lazy veterans who do the same). All of the information on this site is free. Any intelligent question gets an answer where possible.

The problem is not the forum post, it’s that the OP wants to refute it but lacks the knowledge to do so.

People seem to forget what individualism is all about. If you need a refutation, BE THE REFUTATION. Own it.

Honestly, I think some people learn more from being involved in a dialogue. Hence why some people may come to this forum. I know I certainly prefer dialogue/action rather than reading a book for some things. We all have different ways to learn new material and crysatlize our thoughts.

[banned]

Yes, and… nothing in that post is worth dialoguing about. It’s all just a big conflation of Austrianism, not a proper critique. If you or anyone can find something in that post that deserves a response, please cite it.

[Conza]

@Knight_of_BAAWA

@PyrrhonianSkeptic

Well, is the best we can do to these people yell about how they’re “statist trolls” (confirming, in their minds, their conclusions), or can we actually present a positive case for our side, show them their faults, and lessen their self-assurance just a bit?

It is not up to us to disprove their unproven and outlandish claims.

lmao. Love the cut of your jive.

[Jon_Irenicus]

Well, is the best we can do to these people yell about how they’re “statist trolls” (confirming, in their minds, their conclusions), or can we actually present a positive case for our side, show them their faults, and lessen their self-assurance just a bit?

It’s called Capitalism or Human Action or MES or The Theory of Money and Credit or The Economics and Ethics of Private Property or The Ethics of Liberty or The Market for Liberty or For a New Liberty or Economics in One Lesson or Economics for Real People or Mises Made Easier or The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics or Economics made so simple even a statist troll could understand it.

The problem isn’t presenting our side to them. They don’t care and will not be convinced by reason. It is getting those willing to listen on our side. I don’t have time to waste on imbeciles. As an illustration of my point:

The two main problems with it, though, are: praxeology is an unjustified rejetion of the scientific methodology, in favor of conjecturing and sophistry centering around the value-laden axiom (implying notions of perfect rationality, equal access to information, and free will), “humans act”. In addition to being pseudoscientific, it contradicts modern cognitive research.

What is the “value-laden” axiom he is referring to? Humans act is not “value-laden”. It is the statement that humans act purposively, which if denied tangles the denier in self-contradiction. It does not assume “perfect rationality” or any other such garbage (though neoclassical econ does…)

Secondly, Austrian economics claims that the business cycle is caused by government. This is at odds with economic statistics over the last century… which, when pointed out, they then resort to their claim that Austrian economics can just ignore all statistics because it’s not an empirical system of analysis. Ironically, despite this argument, many of their papers and articles strangely appeal to empirical evidence… which contradicts their whole claim before that empirical economic evidence isn’t reliable."

Uncited/unproven assertion as well as post hoc fallacy. And if the papers choose to use empirical cases ot illustrate their argument it is because economics is after all about interpreting various circumstances that arise, so where he gets this abject garbage from is beyond me.

Why should I waste any of my energy on someone this lacking in cerebral fortitude?

And as for Nathyn, he is a certified troll/imbecile. I tore apart swathes of arguments of his in the past, because he so utterly misrepresented every thinker he tried to evoke (Bryan Caplan a “minarchist”? Say what?)

7. Actually, I agree with you on the last point. It creates cognative dissonance when some articles show empirical evidence/economic statistics, yet others reject it as inaccurate. Am I the only one who finds this weird? What should I believe?

It depends. If they say their theory is proven as a result of empirical data, then yes they are in contradiction. If they say the theory applies to the situation and can be used to interpret it, there is none. You should read either Selgin’s paper Praxeology & Understanding or Long’s book on Mises and Wittgenstein. Either will clarify the nature of Austrian apriorism.

[scineram]

He was not this bad in the austrianforum times. Or was that Student?

[Jon_Irenicus]

Student was fine from what I’ve seen (though I doubt we’d agree on much.) Nathyn was the idiot.