Like I said, I have spoken with several of my teachers. Example: a man with a PHD in political science. He hated working with public policy and his degree wouldn’t get him a good job anywhere else, so he chose to be a teacher in a public school. He loves his job and often talks about how happy he is with the benefits he gets from working at my school.
There is violence, lack of achievement standards, and sexual assualt in every corner of the world. If we should eliminate schools because of these reasons than I suppose we should eliminate bars, clubs, and some businesses as well? Oh and the entire country of the United States has a huge number of murders every year even with its police force that I am sure you Austrians hate so much. But hmm, I guess taking that all away will make people safer too huh? [:S]
It is empirical evidence, sure it doesn’t go for everyone, but it proves a point nonetheless.
You have to understand I am new to this. Does it not make sense that your assertions make NO sense to someone new trying to learn this stuff? I am going to questions everything.
Asking me to simply accept what you guys say as truth is the kind of ignorance that you all claim is the reason we accept things like the Federal Reserve today.
No, really. Why are you here? You don’t appear to have done any reading, and most of your posts are completely ridiculous in a free market economics context (put aside AE for a moment), a libertarian ethics context or both.
KoB is right. You are continuing to make assertions, and since you haven’t shown you know anything about AE (perhaps you will clear that up with your next response) I am long past tired of your criticizing the opinions of others, consistent with the Institute’s scholars, or that the school cannot communicate or is somehow diminished intellectually by being a marginal public entity.
Thus far, you have been a pretty poor guest, because you haven’t displayed any knowledge about economics or free markets, and yet you have been more than generous with your criticism.
So, let’s validate your claims.
You’ve been here awhile now. What is AE? Can you tell us what Austrian Economics is based on? Do you know what praxeology is? LTV or STV? What have you read so far?
So from this single event you judge that every teacher would be unhappy if such an event were to transpire? How do you conclude to know the future emotions of strangers on a massive scale? Omniscient?
Clearly not in home education to the degree that public education is.
Before I label this a strawman…where do you get bars, clubs and business from getting rid of public education? Do you learn stats at bars & clubs?
Is this meant to make sense?
Its subjective personal experience, not evidence. If you like that color blue is that empirical evidence that blue is good?
Your not trying to learn, you have some strange argument fetish in which you try to provoke people by insulting them to get a psychic lift out of it. I use to do it to Marxists but then I matured. Don’t hide behind this ‘I am here to learn but somehow you are all wrong, I know you are all wrong and I will continue to say you are all wrong’ mentality. It is rather childish.
I am here to get a feel for Austrian Economics before I delve into the lengthy books that, as I am sure you have realized, are contrary to everything in the world today. There is no free market, it doesn’t exist. And I do know much about economics, but you guys are all saying that its not true. Why on Earth would I read a book saying everything I have learned about economics is not correct without first at least testing the subject?
For example, I just finished reading a book called the Money Men by a professor from UT and I used his research to prove my points, yet I was refuted. You in particular refuted my claim that Warren Harding was the worst president (I was joking by the way, I would say he is bad but not THE worst). I said that because I read a book that discussed how BAD of a president he was. Why the hell would I believe anything different if I haven’t learned otherwise? I even looked up Warren Harding today to double check, and all I found was information on how TERRIBLE he was.
I admit I do NOT KNOW A THING about AE, thats why I came to this site. I bought a book by F.A Hayek if that makes you any happies, not that I care what you think in the slightest.
All I have gotten from this site is iconoclasm to the fullest extent and I no longer wonder why this movement had failed. Instead of teaching me you just blabber randomly while trying to use big words. I even asked for a reading list and got a link to the bookstore… lmao like I couldn’t have done that on my own. Even the book I bought isn’t introductory. If you want me to be able to justify my claims then try helping and tell me an AE book to read for beginners that explains why everything I have learned in two years of higher level economics classes is supposedly wrong
Like I said, I am not going to blindly accept anything
Then stop posting and start reading. Almost everything you have posted to date has been well below the normal level of discourse we expect outside the Newbies forum. No one wants to hear from you, when you admit you know nothing about AE, that this school of thought is a failure. Your opinion is not only unqualified, it is insulting.
Start reading the daily articles. Ask thoughtful questions. Almost every book in the bookstore is available online for free, and some in audio and video format.
You can start with watching this video.
But it would be very wise for you to lay off criticizing Austrians and AE on this site until you can prove you know something about it.
Already seen that video… and I have been reading the articles for the past week. Sorry for not knowing these were high level discussions, I thought they were basic
Then why do you say you know absolutely nothing of AE? When you say that people will actually take your words as they mean. We’re not Marxists divining the true definition of value here. If you are beyond laymen literature like Thomas Wood’s Meltdown then might I suggest Rothbard’s Man, Economy & State that is an in depth treatise on economics.
They are basic. They assume a basic AE understanding. You keep posting without much knowledge of AE.
I cannot stress enough, read and ask questions without tossing out a bunch of your high school econ or preconceived ideas. If you are serious about not believing in things blindly, then please stop repeating the status quo.
AE is worth learning about. It gives economics context. AE is about understanding human action, and how the sum of many humans acting creates complex markets that are as sophisticated as any ecosystem.
AE is making a massive resurgence right now. It might even be on track to be the mainstream of economics in your lifetime.
This guy is the most obvious troll thats posted here in awhile. I knew something wasnt right when he said how awesome the Second National Bank was, how Jackson was ‘wrong’ about - people might start using non-uniform, private money, which is bad you see.
That is an interesting and provocative statement. Do you think that the resurgence is because of Ron Paul in politics or people like Peter Schiff in economics?
Both Paul and Schiff (and to a lesser degree, Faber, Celente and Rogers) are all relevant right now because the state is shooting itself in the foot, and the internet has changed the rules.
Forecasting exercise: To what degree will Austrian economic swell to and does it have a chance of stealing light from Keynesian and Chicago school in public academia?
I have no idea. I am not a forecaster. Too many potential black swans.
Academia is meaningless anyway. The battle has to be won outside the colleges. The internet is undermining the concept of establishment public intellectuals.
I’d generally agree but I also think that academia should be swayed as well, since the general intellectual atmosphere of the time has a great influence on the direction of where things may go after peopel realize the current way of dealing with things isn’t working.
Just lock them in a room with Human Action and tell them they don’t get any food until they’ve read 100 pages and can summarize it in 200 words. They’ll soon learn.
Exactly my point. So why would teaching disappear if public schools disappear? It won’t as you also argue here cause “Teachers CHOOSE to be teachers”.
Public school is not cheap and is not free. It cost tax dollars to run, but you may not even know how to pay the bills by the answers you are giving so you haven’t reached the awareness of what it means to have a job and sustain a household instead of living off of somebody’s else’s honest efforts.
The free market is everywhere. It’s where all production and non-coercive human action takes place in this civil society. It’s the parasitic governmental interference upon the free market that coerces it to give up it’s goods by the point of a gun. The thieves and murderers go to the market every day and night coercing it to hand over the goods. Property is stolen and life is taken. The free market is what makes possible North Koreans to exchange and get food, but full blown coercion in such a communist state buckles it periodically leading to mass starvations.
The free market is the only market, and all government and thus criminal interactions with the free market and civil society are coercive and unjustly manipulates its action.
It seems quite pointless to debate whether you are happy about going to State controlled schools.
The, main point is, the State isn’t authorized to control schools. That’s the end of the debate. There’s no reason to debate state controlled schools vs private.
