There are a lot of topics on the boards here that are along the lines of “Person Y articulated argument X and I can’t for the life of me find the flaw in it. Could someone more educated than me point out the flaw in it?” I’m sure you can think of some examples.
These people implicitly assume that there is a flaw in argument X despite their inability to perceive one. Does this not indicate that such people are not interested in the truth so much as advancing their ideology? After all, once could just as easily write “Person Y articulated argument X and I can’t for the life of me find a flaw it it. It would seem to contrast with my ideology and the ideology of the many on this board. How do the forum-goers of the LvMI respond to this argument?”
Am I right? If so, does this imply that experienced posters on these boards have a duty as representatives of libertarianism to respond to such topics not only with a well-thought out argument but also an admonishment not to be close-minded? Does it worry anyone that libertarianism attracts ideologues–essentially, the mass-man, not only the Remnant? Or is it an inevitable aspect of any ideology? Should and in what manner should the mass-men of libertarianism be approached differently than the Remnants? Can mass-men be converted to Remnants, and if so, how? Does the mass-man, even if he is ostensibly on our side, threaten libertarianism with his intellectual bankruptcy?
Any other thoughts related to this would also be appreciated.
Another way of putting it is that if libertarianism is going to become a major force, it must convert not only intellectuals but the masses in all their laziness, ignorance, false understanding, etc. If it’s not a problem yet, it will be. They don’t really understand. They understand only what is convenient for them to understand, which will include a lot of bullshit. What does this mean for the future of libertarianism, and how can libertarians deal with it?
These people implicitly assume that there is a flaw in argument X despite their inability to perceive one. Does this not indicate that such people are not interested in the truth so much as advancing their ideology? After all, once could just as easily write “Person Y articulated argument X and I can’t for the life of me find a flaw it it. It would seem to contrast with my ideology and the ideology of the many on this board. How do the forum-goers of the LvMI respond to this argument?”
For some people maybe, but not necessarily. A lot of times you’ll hear something that you know is wrong because it goes against things you know are true, but you might not be able to articulate the principle in question. You don’t need to be an economist to understand that the idea that war makes you richer is nonsense (not that most economists seem to get this!), even if you can’t articulate the fallacies involved.
But that’s absurd. “I know I’m right even though I’ve been refuted?” How is that not the perfect excuse for close-mindedness?
Economics is famous for being counter-intuitive. It should be obvious that the minimum wage makes workers better off. I don’t care if I can’t respond to this “Law of Demand” nonsense. It’s just silly.
But that’s absurd. “I know I’m right even though I’ve been refuted?” How is that not the perfect excuse for close-mindedness?
Straw man. Certain arguments are absurd and don’t make sense with things we actually know about the world. You will note that they ask for arguments to contradict it. What would be stupid is to read some half-baked column by Krugman and throw your hands up and go, ‘I guess Rothbard was wrong, I’m gonna become a Nazi!’
Economics is famous for being counter-intuitive.
Funny, I find the ‘normal’ way people think to be counter-intuitive. Subjectivism, marginal utility and the harmony of self-interest mediated by agreement has been obvious to me since I was a child.
I don’t think so. After studying free market economics for a while you know that the other sides arguments are wrong somehow, you just can’t always tell how exactly they are wrong. You know that there is some market force that fixes the problem they came up with. That is because all of the other sides arguments are essentially the same: “The free market can’t take care of X, therefore we need someone to step in and do it.” And the response to all of these is “The free market does X just fine, the following market forces take care of it.” So after after running into like a hundred of these arguments you know that there is some market force that takes care of every potential problem. When you run into a new argument of this kind you know that there is some market force that takes care of this one too, you just don’t know which one yet.
I don’t think so. After studying free market economics for a while you know that the other sides arguments are wrong somehow, you just can’t always tell how exactly they are wrong. You know that there is some market force that fixes the problem they came up with. That is because all of the other sides arguments are essentially the same: “The free market can’t take care of X, therefore we need someone to step in and do it.” And the response to all of these is “The free market does X just fine, the following market forces take care of it.” So after after running into like a hundred of these arguments you know that there is some market force that takes care of every potential problem. When you run into a new argument of this kind you know that there is some market force that takes care of this one too, you just don’t know which one yet.
Nero is correct about this, too. People are basically still thinking in the central planner paradigm when they expect you to come up with a fully flushed out system for private law society or whatever. The point is that if a problem exists it is in someone else’s interest on the market to come up with a contract, technology or personell change that will fix the problem so long as the cost of fixing the problem is lower than the marginal cost of letting it continue.
People do this all the time, and there’s nothing really wrong with it per se. If you find eventually that you can’t counter the argument or the point made, then maybe it’s time to reconsider your core belief about the way the world works. If you study a topic well enough and think it corresponds to reality as you perceive it, it’s not useful to treat it as a tenative conclusion in your day-to-day life. If you stumble across something that seems to be right but then again it conflicts with what you are pretty sure is the case and need help articulating a counter-point, then there’s nothing wrong with talking about it in the open.
Like I said, if you find you can’t counter it, then you have to shake up whichever position you were holding on to. If you didn’t, that would be close-minded.
After attending lectures in Geometry given by Euclid, Smiling Dave was convinced that A squared plus B squared equals C squared for all right triangles. Skeptical at first, his study of the logical proofs, as well as measurements of various right triangles, had him totally convinced.
He was shocked to find Paul Krugman’s article showing that A squared plus B squared does NOT equal C squared in Japan.
He posted in Euclid’s forum, asking for help. The more experienced geometers pointed out that Krugman was writing about circles, and calling them triangles.
Unfortunately, yes. The average person holds beliefs that are built on nothing more than herding instinct and apeals to authority. Belonging to a herd that shares similar beliefs and having a desire to be led is the unavoidable expression of the collectivist gene in humans. A very small minority of humans choose the much harder individualist path of building one’s own model of the universe from the ground up and only adding to the model bricks that they acquired through logic which, by definition, they can defend when questioned. The individualist would immediately remove a brick whose placement he’s unable to defend. A colectivist, not so much.
Though this forum is home to the largest proportion of individualists I’ve seen anywhere, it’s not immune to expressions of collectivism as described above, and I fully agree with your observation.
I am unable to defend the advantages of one medical treatment over another without appealing to authority. I am able to prefer the scientific decision making process of modern medicine to the exorcism of demons. In the same way, while I may not be able to personally derive every conclusion that Austrian economics might arrive at, I can prefer the scientific methodology it uses to arrive at those conclusions.
Don’t under-sell yourself too quickly. An expert unable to explain/defend his decisions (logic) to a non-expert is no expert at all. Such inability only uncovers the gaping holes in the “expert’s” understanding of his field and his own propensity for herd behavior and appeal to authority.
In many cases, this is probably true, but you’re assuming that the person asking is an expert, or at least thinks of himself as an expert. If a person is still learning basic economics or political theory, and argument X relies on a more advanced understanding of the relevant field, it makes total sense that he ask why those who have such an advanced understanding are not persuaded by argument X. So one could just as easily write, “Person Y articulated argument X and I can’t for the life of me find a flaw in it. I know that people much smarter and/or more educated than I dispute the validity of argument X, so where do they see the flaw in argument X?” A person can ask such a question without forsaking his search for truth.
And I would say that the “mass-man” problem is inevitable. I think the most important thing for libertarians to do is emphasize the role of peace when teaching others. You’re gonna have blind and emotional followers; the least we can hope is that they don’t use libertarianism to justify violence and disorder. Probably also inevitable, but it’s worth striving for.
I agree with the overall point, but I think there’s kind of an equivocation going on between collectivism as a political ideology and collectivism as a intellectual mentality. Collectivism as a intellectual mentality is when you don’t think about stuff yourself and do what the heard does, we intuitively bridge that to political collectivism which we all don’t like. But can we really say that that will lead to an ideology that puts the group above the individual?
It has nothing to do with collectivism, either way; collectivism is, as you say, “an ideology that puts the group above the individual”; this has no relationship to “herding instinct” (in fact, just the opposite: animals form herds for the protection of themselves, the individual animals, not the herd (collective) itself; the herd would be safer if they split up!)
It’s the equivalent of division of labour. You can’t become the world’s leading expert in every field; it only makes sense to find out who the experts are and follow their lead in most things, not waste time understanding the subject to any great degree. You don’t build your own toaster from scratch, right?
Hopefully, you also don’t hold positions (make claims) regarding toasters which you are unable to defend on your own and you don’t defer to a trusty master toaster-maker to defend them in your stead.
I agree, the choice of the word (collectivism) may not have been the best even though there’s an inevitable correlation (even causation?) between its emergence as an individual mentality and a political ideology – dangers of which cannot be underestimated. “Herd instinct (gene)” is probably better. The point still remains, though.
