You can’t be sure you are producing real wealth. That’s the funny thing about the hampered market, for all you know you’re working in an industry that might not exist without the state. So once again, anything you say in regards to my ideal career, I turn on its head and apply it to your current career.
Also, I don’t buy the Randian nonsense about pride, self respect and production, so your argument is lost on me.
Strange, I never stated that, but intellectuals do need to participate in the debates of the academia. However, that does not “equate to the set of academics with pubic funding.”
Excellent. We agree then.
Of course we use the State. For me, call it making my conscientious feel better, it comes down to choice. If an option on the table is to partake with a free market experience, then I will. And I try my best to have that option on the table, but if it’s not, then I can’t do anything about it since I follow the NAP it would be against my principle to launch a preemptive violent revolution.
I don’t know if it is commons, I’m not sure what that concept entails. I’ve been through the university and have a BA in Anthropology with my electives mainly in the physical sciences (geology, astronomy, and human biology such as Anatomy and Physiology and Kinesiology) and philosophy. I took the elective courses all the way up to the 300 level since I took so many of those courses I was able to get past the introductory courses into such higher level ones. 400 level courses are the last level and you basically would either major or minor in those subjects to get that far. [Not sure how other countries “level” system works] I had quite a few history and psychology courses thrown in too.
That’s rich given your position a few pages back.
You’re missing the point completely, or hammering a different one than I am. Economic science, in your narrow experience, is the future of liberty. But it isn’t. Market action (which I’m going to assume you have limited experience with) is what moves mankind. Not journal entries and studies. Profit making action.
I don’t disagree that if you’re an Austrian, you should find an Austrian program if you are going to study economics. I don’t disagree, that Austrians should collaborate and work together to promote their common perspective. But you’re forgetting that without Lew Rockwell a non-economist, there might not be a LvMI in the first place. And it’s not just lew Rockwell. It’s Stephan Kinsella and Jeffrey Tucker. Tom Woods is teaching basic business cycle theory to millions of people, he’s the vanguard of change. Research for the sake of research, is not change.
Now that doesn’t discount the economists. I think there are a lot Austrians who make great contributions. But they put them out where people can get at them. They don’t discourage people from trying to revolutionize or take chances. People like Walter Block and Tom DiLorenzo come at you from the street level. They are constantly out engaging people.
Leonard Read, while a non-economist is another good example of a man who has done much to advance economic science, by providing venues and opportunies for it’s development. And he did it by walking the walk. So did William Voelker. These are non-economists who have underwritten the expansion of free market and austrian research for decades.
Ok. This at least makes your statements about not being libertarian whole.
The NAP is not a belief. It is a selected ethical system. I do not suffer from oughtism.
I would argue that if one is a Protestant, then defacto they follow the NAP (or at least recognize it’s efficacy). If you are not for non-aggression that is what is important to know.
I don’t generally hold grudges. There is little profit in it.
And that’s fine, in that you are entitled to your opinion. I do think a lot of it has to do with the fact you are not a producer, and it’s easy to rationalize the easy way out. You’re certainly not taking any risks or incurring any losses by your approach. When someone else starts taking their piece of the pie out of your labour, and from your kid’s mouths, I suspect you will feel differently.
Right now, you’re validating all of the economically destructive behaviour you normally protest like homosexuality, drug use, and so forth. I mean, after all, they are just getting their piece of the pie while they can, and thus can’t be looked at as parasites any more than you can, right?
Funny how you many times staked out the position that the state subsidizes things the market would not, and then turn around and make the opposite argument here when you are the one getting subsidized.
Again, this is a strawman. You don’t know enough about my lifestyle to know which commons I do and do not exploit (I don’t own a car, so roads are out). I’ve also made clear that these are not commons, the property is stolen, and still has rightful owners. And lastly, this is a lame argument against the man, the likes I dealt with yesterday in a voting debate with Austrians. Regardless of whether or not I use any stolen property, it does not validate stealing, or encouraging (through use) such a system.
Trying to shift the moral burden onto me is a fail. It’s a tactic to use against someone who is not trying to live within his ethics.
It’s this whole notion of defending the State and yet some people would choose out of the State. How do you defend something that you would like to get rid of? This is what is mind-boggling in this whole discussion.
I face market forces. You won’t in your ideal career.
I know you don’t have a concept of pride or self-respect, but surely the case for production is clear.
First of all taxation not theft is not scientific Giles. All this boasting about science and then you pigeon-hole what suits you, in other words, value selecting. And then you said to me you would like to see the State disappear ASAP and now you say here that you “don’t believe the state is illegitimate”.
A dog chasing it’s own tail.
Considering the fact that it is, and was a public university founded by the Habsburgs that had close connections with the Habsburg dynasty.
That was actually the point at which you were supposed to admit that government funding does not corrupt everything, but alas.
The means of accepting government money when bestoyed upon oneself is not immoral, ergo we need not even question whether the ends justify the means here.
There gets to a point at which the government will go bankrupt, no matter what.
Again, accepting government money is not immoral, and I am definately willing to defend research that accepts money from the state, and if it leads to greater prosperity, I will praise it even more.
.
Are you seriously asserting that intellectuals, and scientists merely consume resources? Milton Friedman has a great rebuttal against that: the influence of intellectual-economists has lead to the liberalization of markets, and the tearing down of tariffs that has consequently lead to the creation of a quanity of wealth that far exceeds the quanity of wealth those intellectual-economists had consumed. Plus, our debate right now would not have been possible if it was not for lazy, consuming quantum physicists, and their theories.
We all do not see the applicability of pure theories, but just because we do not see the applicibility of those pure theories, just because they seem to be just the play-things of intellectuals, does not mean that we should value them as worthless.
My humble suggestion.
Do not equivocate accepting money, with requesting money, the two are completely different.
One of the reasons why I am a libertarian, is because it is consistent with with judeo-christian values, which are my values.
The people in Iraq are fighting for their lives. They are fighting for their culture and their families.
Allah is your God. Sometimes your ignorance is astonishing.
I don’t really understand what you mean about my position a few pages back, if you’re capable of showing me where I’ve seriously contradicted myself, I’ll clarify what I meant. I don’t think you can though, so I think you’ve misunderstand. As regards the banner, my point was that you seem to be trying to shift the emphasis off of the “scholarship” aspect of the sentence and on to the “liberty” part. Whereas I believe there are plenty of ways to advance liberty, and plenty of people capable of doing it. Serious Austrian scholarship is far harder to advance, and only some people (LvMI, a few GMU scholars and some others) are capable of doing it. Leave liberty to the RPers, science is what the Institute should be concerned with
I’ve never doubted that science has little impact on liberty, I’m making a different point than you are, an unrelated one at that. And since you’re the one who jumped on me you’d best be willing to apologise for your mistake.
I don’t give a damn about liberty, I agree that if you advance liberty you need to do more than be making it into the top journals. On the other hand, if you wish to advance economic science, you’d best be willing to try to get into those top journals. Especially if it’s Austrian economics that you’re intent on advancing, which is very underappreciated right now. I suppose this is the difference between you and I, you care about liberty and I care about science.Or perhaps you think science is merely a means to a bigger end, whereas I think it’s an end in itself. I also don’t think you understand my views about Austrians and graduate schools, I think Austrians should avoid Austrian PhD programmes like the plague. Young and talented Austrian economists should be aiming for Harvard, LSE, MIT, U of Chicago, Oxbridge, Princeton, Yale, Stanford, Toulouse, UCL, Rutgers, UPenn, Berkeley etc. not GM and other such programmes.
As for Kinsella, Tucker, Rockwell, Woods and Block, all of these people, some to a greater extent than others, play the public intellectual role. Now, I don’t doubt that they do great work in getting economics out there to people making young people interested in economics, and for that I have nothing but respect for all of them. But it’s wrong to confuse this with doing science. And before you compliment DiLorenzo, I suggest you look at which universities he’s looked at (it’s easy, but I’ll give you three guesses). It’s very important to have people fill the public intellectual role, but it’s wrong to confuse “fighting for liberty” with doing science. So don’t make the mistake of confusing great men like Mr Rockwell and Mr Tucker with scientists like Mises and Hayek.
As I’ve said, I’m all for non aggression, and I’m a Protestant as you pointed out. But I don’t hold the NAP as highly as many here do, I believe it’s a good way to live ones life and that it is perhaps a good rule by which to organize society. But I don’t think that one should merely dogmatically adhere to it. Wrt your other comments, you haven’t given me any reason why you have selected the NAP. So, I guess I’m going to have to ask for an ethical argument as to why you have accepted libertarian political philosophy and ethics as opposed to others.
I believe that’s an ad hom and is not relevant. But yeah, sure, they’re allowed to grab their piece of the pie. The difference is a lot of them ask for extra state assistance to support their alternative lifestyle.
In any case, none of it implies I have to agree with their lifestyle or refrain from judgement.
Do you have a point, or more importantly, did you address mine?
I don’t need to value something in the moral sense to vaue it at all.
What? Seriously, some people on these forums really need to learn how to type a fucking coherent sentence.
Well that pretty much summed your position up for me. Have a good day.
Do I have to teach you how to read now? Or is this more dog chasing its own tail stuff? And if this is about how you “don’t give a damn about liberty”, well, I know when somebody’s blown it when I see it. Or are you going to get ad hominem like you have been getting with people and start calling them “fags” or “asking them to choke on corn”?
This thread just got absurd.
Good day
So, it would be OK if a government agent jailed you for no reason?
See, its hacks like you that cause Austrianism to be laughed at by the scientific community. I don’t care about liberty anymore than it is conducive to me acheiving my goals in life. I’d love the state to collapse tomorrow, just like sometimes I’d love people to change their ring tone, doesn’t mean it’s a moral decision.
Why did Murray Rothbard have to choose to allign Austrian economics with anarchism? What a fateful choice, seriously. Since then serious scientists have either called themselves Austrians and been shunned for it, or refrained from doing so lest they be associated with third rate pseudo philosophers from Russia or kooks like you who denounce people for not valuing liberty as highly as you.
so people that disagree with each other , laugh at each other. …big whoop. you would rather we dont laugh at keynesians and other assorted form’s of pseudo-economists so they don’t laugh at us? why are pseudoeconomists to be granted more respect than butchers, bakers, and candle-stickmaker (and Paul and Schiff) when it comes to matters of economics (read: not pseudo-economics)
spoken like a true-statist /poltician
and lolz at comparing the evils of the state to a trivial nuisance
err… he Hates the State. and knowledge of economics fuels the fire, it does not dampen it.
the ones who are true to their character have my respect. the others that have so much respect for their ‘peers’ as to not dare to confront them with their imperfections have not.
I’d like you to thoroughly understand Keynesianism (which nobody here does) before you dismiss it as nonsense. I’d like to see a well argued rejection of it around here, which few can give. I hardly think people like Mankiw and Friedman are “pseudo-economists” I just think you don’t really have as much knowledge of economics as they do, therefore you’re wont to dismiss them as such.
And this is why you guys are seen as a bunch of hacks, you dismiss anybody who isn’t entirely in agreement with you as a hack. That simply isn’t good for meaningful discourse.
It’s funny that you should call me a statist, seeing as I’d probably identify myself as an anarchist. I just don’t think you’ve managed to find a good enough reason to call the state illegitimate (I don’t need one, see, I’m a Christian and I can reject the state since it goes against my values, you can’t).
You’re missing my point, so please, go back and learn to read.
No I don’t.
So what? The point of objectivity is that there IS only one universal definition. Any deviation from that is subjectivity.
How does one think of which method is most efficient? Subjective means.
And in explaining the Great Depression, is Rothbard objective? Of course not. He already knows the answer to the question before he wrote the book. But is he correct and truthful? Yes.
Maybe talking to Giles is a real waste of time. Well, commoners shouldn’t pretend to understand how great scientists think. Long live the hard science of academic propaganda, sorry, academic economics.