…with a foreign occupation army there to rape, shoot, imprison and torture them.
What an incredibly dim view. If anything it merely speaks to me of the misery certain megalomaniacs can cause when they have the full force of arms under their control. Let’s not blame ‘human nature’ for the actions of psychopaths.
If humans are volitional, then why blame megalomaniac leaders for atrocities rather than the people actually raping, pillaging, torturing, burning, bombing, shooting, and terrifying innocent civilians?
Fear of the leadership plus obedience, as well as genuine delusion. Have you ever studied how it was to live under regimes like Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia? Very little activity in these countries was voluntary.
Of course, some of the State’s enforcers are actual psychopaths, just like their leaders.
This does not reveal human Nature, this reveals to us what occurs when humans have a statist society. These wars do not orginate from the people but from the state. So are you going to base human nature off the rulers of society? Yes Human Nature plays a part, however, these obscenities cannot be attributed solely to our nature, for I contend without the state this is not what one would commonly attribute to Human Nature. These murderous wars would be costlier to wage without the state. It it Human Nature plus the power of legitimized initiation of violence, that is vile and what is to blame here.
Human nature is not completely good nor evil. I would say that Human nature is that we are rational (by that I mean we all seek to act in a way which we perceive will benefit us). Principally that we are selfish.
If you believe in empirical validity then may I ask, how much of the Austrian Economic School do you subscribe to?
In addition this topic is heading off course, and I contend if we wish to continue the debate over the validity of abstract theories we start a new thread. How is it that Man in the past has been able to reason Natural Philosophy without empirical validation (which empirical validation verifireid) and has been able to with regard’s to the social sciences. How much do you know about praxeology? And why do you wish to apply empirical validation to the social sciences when that clearly been shown to be an an ineffective tool?
What has this to do with the Austrian School? The Austrian School rejects empiricism-positivism as grounds for sound epistemology (especially with regard to praxeological theorems), not the validity of empirical facts…
If you want to discuss methodology, I suggest going here:
Reading the article would be a good idea too.
Inquisitor I know, although thank you for pointing this out anyway .
That might explain entrenched dictatorships such as in Germany, Russia and Japan during WW2, but how do you explain (1.) the fire bombing & (2.) atomic bombing of Japanese cities, (3.) the unprovoked invasion of Iraq, (4.) the rape, (5.) shooting (6.) imprisonment, & (7.) torture of innocent Iraqi civilians by U.S. military and civilian personnel?
I don’t see how they could be considered “Rothbardians” if that’s what they believe. Chapter 19 of The Ethics of Liberty covers this subject.
It’s not a valid contract without a penalty bond, as no property titles have been transferred.
No, I have no right to seize more than what was agreed upon. If you failed to pay up at the agreed upon time, I should’ve had the sense to establish in the original loan agreement what the penalties would be if you failed to pay me back on time. If I didn’t do so, that’s my own fault.
Tens of thousands of people participated in the invasion and now about 150,000 people participate in the occupation of Iraq. Each and every one of them a volitional human being having, as you say, a principally selfish human nature. So when they flew over Iraq to deliver shock & awe they weren’t thinking of how tbeir bombs would ruin the infrastructure, but rather how this combat mission would look on their military record? When the occupation check points were set up, the guards didn’t erect gates across the roads, but instead merely shouted “stop” in English to the iraqi drivers or fired into the air frightening the driver thus causing him/her to increase speed so that the guards now had to shoot volleys at the speeding car thus killing many Iraqi families. During the occupation very many middle-of the-night raids were performed on questionable intelligence (perhaps Iraqi A had a grudge against Iraqi B and reported B to the occupiers) a squad would break in the door and take the males out of the house, search the house and then perhaps imprison a male or two. There have been complaints by Iraqis of money and jewely stolen and killings during those raids. There have been wanton murders, rapes and tortures of Iraqis by the occupiers. How many of these volitional persons refused to invade Iraq? How many refused to occupy Iraq? This says nothing about human nature? Do you claim that people were less violent before the advent of governments? I contend that nothing is more costly without the state!
I believe in the scientific method, don’t you? I don’t “subscribe” to any set of opinions because tommorow I may change one or more if presented with new evidence. If you are, in effect, claiming that armed forces personnel are equivalent to slaves, then maybe this is on topic, what say you? If one doesn’t base one’s opinions on evidence, then how can one gain knowledge of reality? Empirical validation/verification is a reality test of opinions. I’ve read Mises’ Human Action. I am an advocate of Austrian economics, but I am also a realist.
You’ve read Human Action, but did you understand anything it said pertaining to methodology? I am going to create a large post with links to various articles and books on Austrian economics and other relevant topics. Too few Austrians - let alone neoclassicals - understand their own methodology, and this is ridiculous.
Right, and which of these cases, exactly, is meant to be an example of the majority of humans being pernicious? You are making a general statement about human nature, and in so doing reference a minority of the population who act on any vile impulses they may have. I’ve already mentioned there are psychopaths outside of the ruling class, i.e. its enforcers.
“It is true that economics is a theoretical science and as such abstains from any judgment of value. It is not its task to tell people what ends they should aim at. It is a science of the means to be applied for the attainment of ends chosen, not, to be sure, a science of the choosing of ends.” - Human Action, page 10.
Mosts advocates of Austrian economics, contrary to Mises’ above statement, contend that with a free market everyone will enjoy a higher standard of living.
In trying to prove this point, I posted Slave Trade? and Thriving? R U KIDDING ME?
Before I go on, are you referring to wertfreiheit (ie value-freedom)?
I have given specific examples of those to whom I referred to as advocates of Austrian economics:
“What I look to do is to point out how Austrian Theory not only debunks the fallacies that the anti-outsourcing advocates have been spawning, but also points out why the process makes sense economically, and not just for the countries where the investment takes place, but also the nations where the final goods are sold.” - The Economics of Outsourcing By William L. Anderson Posted on 4/21/2004 at http://mises.org/daily/1488 “In fact, when it comes to overall U.S. living standards, there is nothing special about outsourcing software technology. All that matters in this case is whether the Chinese and Indians sell for less than what current American software producers could earn in their next most lucrative employment. If so, outsourcing enhances U.S. living standards.” - Perils of Outsourcing By T. Norman Van Cott and Cecil Bohanon Posted on 2/11/2004 at http://mises.org/daily/1443 “After all, why shouldn’t firms outsource? Why shouldn’t the worker who is willing to render the best services for the least pay be the one who gets the job? Instinctively, most of us recoil in disgust at the suggestion that wages should reflect nothing more than the cold calculus of supply and demand. Yet few of us realize just how essential this “cold calculus” is for the long-run welfare of laborers themselves.” - In Defense of Outsourcing By Steve Piraino Posted on 1/23/2002 at http://mises.org/daily/877 |
|---|
Also "Thriving in a Global Economy: The Truth about US Manufacturing and Trade" by Daniel J. Ikenson (of the Cato Institute) at https://forum.freecapitalists.org/t/thriving-r-u-kidding-me/127
That isn’t what I asked… you seem to be referring to the fact-value dichotomy. If so, Mises had stated in The Epistemological Problems of Economics that an economist, is permitted in referring to the outcome of a policy as beneficial if that is how most individuals involved would view the outcome. He gives the analogy of a doctor proscribing a treatment to a patient on account that it would cure them, as presumably they’d desire the cure. Likewise, a biologist might refer to a virus as pernicious.
This, strictly speaking, is not a violation of the fact-value dichotomy; it is just a way of expression. Saying individuals must, on account of economic theory, value growth, though, would be a violation of value-freedom. None of the quotes you provided show exhibit such a violation anyway.
In the post of Fri, Dec 14 2007 1:55 PM, my point, as stated, may have been misleading. What I meant by ‘will’ was not ‘must’ (in the sense that everyone must value a higher standard of living). Sorry to be misleading , I try to be unambiguous, and thanks for the correction. |
|---|
Hmmm, how about NO. The slave trade was not done by advocates of free trade, but by enemies of free society. People give credit to antebellum south for being favorable to free trade, but who here can deny the un countable number of abuses committed by the south. Slavery was the number one offense, but antebellum south can be described as hypocritical. If the south was some fortress of minarchy, then why did they force issues to the Supreme Court, the most heavy handed, corrupt and royal of the branches, like Dred Scott? Why did Presidents from the south, or northern Dems antebellum excercise such power? People forget about the actions of James K. Polk regarding the Mexican War, the Vietnam(although it was more of a success) to thinkers, especially Thoreau, people forget that it was the southerners who wanted EXPANSION to take further Federal control, and as in the Ostend Manifesto, showed again that they believed that heavy handed, MILITARY action, and offering to increase government spending was the way to go. Franklin Pierce, he put his support to the pro slavery men, and sent in FEDERAL TROOPS to defend ONE CHOSEN out of MANY shadow governments, because he was controlled by the self righteous Democrats. South Carolina seceded and made a testament of their rights, but, their pre-secession voting record shows that the PLANTER ARISTOCRACY was more important than the COMMON MAN. The Democrats of the South had eroded from Jacksonianism (which itself was a questionable set of policies), and was no different from the REPUBLICANS. Hate Lincoln all you can, call him a Leninist, a Facist, anything, but I will tell you this right now, the seceded Confederate South was a wallowing pigpen of self righteous hypocrisy that oppressed as good as any Stalin or Hitler could do. The Confederacy did not secede for individual freedoms, their constitution or not, they seceded to stop FREE TRADE AND FREEDOM.
I don’t think anyone here is defending the hypocrisy. However, the hypocrisy certainly did not give the North legitimacy in invading the south. That is what you are suggesting correct?