is that sarcasm ?
It is evidently true to a degree. It explains the need for state intellectuals, court historians and the rest of the apologia band. People’s political ideals are largely based on their conception of history. Obviously we are not born with a full knowledge of history.
If parents didn’t brainwash and coerce ‘their’ children things would be pretty different. Scams like revealed religion wouldn’t last a generation…
also i want to add. isn’t this also focusing on civil society. meaning, it’s putting ones attention on what an individual would care for and want to walk towards (as in away from government). i don’t think i’m saying this very clearly, but i mean to cultivate what an individual values in a voluntary way it is good to focus on those relations that any particular individual may want to maintain in a society not only without a government but while the government still preys upon people. in other words, these are the important aspects of our lives that an individual would benefit in strengthing in ones everyday life. the relationship between parents and their son(s) and/or daughter(s) can be perceived revolutionary. What my wife, rest of family, and I teach our son now might either be extremely radical amongst his peers and the acceptance by his peers is a pivotal moment for that particular society of individuals. As well as who my son might meet as well they in turn will either give something that might be deemed prosperous and beyond what he previously had, sustain what he already has, or counter what he has. I think about this at times on how the direction I go and thereby my son may go is to what outcome morally in relation to the rest of society. And the rest of society in turn towards us (my family). These decisions and actions grow the civil society and may lessen statism. This is significant in walking away from the government peaceably. It may be a non-violent revolution that takes generations or if son(s) and daughter(s) are brought up to accept unnecessary authority then the progress isn’t towards a voluntary/civil society but rather maintaining or growing it.
maybe it became clearer as I continued writing and also what you said was obviously inspirational.
Maybe you are programmed, I am not. My capacity to reason and to make decisions is influenced by my morality, experiences, condition, etc. The numerous and many variables which makes human action impossible to predict.
If we took the argument to a reductio, then slaves would never revolt. So all we can conclude is that it is a broad generalization. Which is not very fruitful if we’re going to employ methodological individualism and praxeology.
I think this depends on where people are from and what they’re used to hearing. I grew up in a liberal Jewish family so when i first heard conservative ideas, I thought they were terrible and extreme. Now, I consider myself a libertarian conservative. So really, it’s just a matter of conditioning. Any idea can sound extreme or familiar depending on conditioning.
I don’t know what to make of this sentence.
Experiences count as history. So I guess we both ‘programmed’?
I never established that history is the sole basis for political development. It would be silly for me, someone who is a natural rights theorist, to do such.
Hence the term ‘largely’
Praxeology is the basis for economics, not political philosophy. That was actually the whole conflict with Mises and Rothbard. Mises did not, in Rothbard’s mind, include a political philosophy behind his economics. There wasn’t an ethical system per say. There was utilitarianism but that could be use to justify a lot of unstable agendas according to Rothbard.
I think that there are quite a few here. I think the active users are versed to a varying degree in praxeology and utilize it when talking about economics.
You and I have very little in common.
Start a new thread on this, maybe someone will debate it with you.
We’re both libertarians and love the LvMi. We don’t have to be cuddly with each other but I hope we can be civil.
Will do.
The vast majority of so-called ‘conspiracy theorists’ are right wingers/constitutionalists/libertarians. Just look at the prisonplanet forums if you have any doubts.
I didn’t quite get this. Human action is the genus of all things pertaining to humans, to be redundant, acting.
Human action doesn’t necessarily equate utilitarianism. Human action is a genus of argumentation for instance. And what is argued pertaining to human action involves arguments about natural rights being validated by human action itself - right down your path.
Political philosophy implies value judgments as to which system is best for governing a society.
No, I didn’t say it did. Praxeology is a descriptive in terms of explaining what is not necessarily what ought to be. Without an ethical system to supplement it then it is saying ‘Do X to get Y’ without value statements.
Praxeology can only go so far though, yes you have human action but when you say ‘people shouldn’t coerce others’ that is an ethical statement.