No it’s not. You’re conflating AE with anarcho-capitalism.
What success? Economics has failed to provide any meaningful or important theoretical breakthrough’s since the 1930’s. There are no mainstream successes. New Keynesian economics is an amalgamation of previously understood concepts alongside confusions and already refuted doctrines re-introduced by economic mystics.
Do you exist? Global skepticism is unforgivably moronic. Why even waste your time commenting? We don’t exist; your computer doesn’t exist; you don’t exist!
And how did you reach this stunning conclusion? Life must be great when you’re not bound by pesky little things like truth or logical consistency. You get to bombard those around you with baseless assertions while simultaneously denying the existence of truth.
So what is THE truth and how do you think it should affect society?
Also, I’ve gotta say, I really didn’t see the point of college as being anything other than getting accreditation. Just saying. I dropped out because I decided I’d rather spend the money on other things, but getting a good job would probably be pretty tough for me because I lack accreditation.
I think it’s important to remember that human beings are first and foremost driven and dominated by jealousy and the fear of failure. Such motivations, in the aggregate, dwarf the quest for truth and honest inquiry. This is why society is quick to embrace and propagate the move towards “perfect equality,” where failure, and therefore the consequences of failure, are entirely removed. The asymmetric results of freedom reveal to men that they are not equal, and that some are indeed better than others. This is simply a condition many people are unable to accept. They will blame the entire world before they blame themselves. Mises makes a similar point in The Anti-Capitalist Mentality, where he elucidates the appeal of romanticism which wishes to return to the “good old days” (perpetual famine, strife, war).
In a society based on caste and status, the individual can ascribe adverse fate to conditions beyond his own control. He is a slave because the superhuman powers that determine all becoming had assigned him this rank. It is not his doing, and there is no reason for him to be ashamed of his humbleness. His wife cannot find fault with his station. If she were to tell him: “Why are you not a duke? if you were a duke, I would be a duchess,” he would reply; “If I had been born the son of a duke, I would not have married you, a slave girl, but the daughter of another duke; that you are not a duchess is exclusively your own fault; why were you not more clever in the choice of your parents?” (ACM, pp. 11). Thus, failure is eliminated, and jealousy is minimized.
This is why, in my opinion, anarcho-capitalism is an untenable doctrine, which will always be relegated to various philosophers who are bound by the rigid rules of logic, and who refuse to acknowledge (or over-look) the evils of human nature (an assertion substantiated by all of human history). A species which yearns for socialism (at one point 3/4 of the world lived in the miserable and yet relatively equitable condition known as socialism), and which places emotion above reason, can never accept anarcho-capitalism (only 53% of Americans, the richest and most privileged society on earth, say that capitalism is better than socialism). You cannot force freedom upon the masses; they simply don’t want it.
Just to be clear I’m not decrying colleges being practical with accreditation as a signal for employees. My point is they haven’t really thought why they are doing what they are and that they aren’t great at being at all practical.
As an aside I greatly dislike this qualifications culture we have; it reduces the individual to letters after his name. It’s not to say they aren’t useful but there is way too much emphasis on them. My friends Dad left school at 16 and has 20 years experience in sales; he was made redundant and then couldn’t get another job because he wasn’t qualified enough. So he went to night school to learn absolutely nothing he didn’t know already so that he was qualified.
A very pertinent question. Before I answer I’d like to say my OP’s main thrust was that a lack of any metanarrative destroys the search for truth- in previous ages there was Enlightenment humanism, cyclical animism/pantheism and Christianity to name a few however post-existentialism the search for a metanarrative is over: the only metanarrative is that there isn’t one.
So what do I believe the truth is? Now if you are referring to an over arching metanarrative then THE truth is creation, fall and redemption- the story of Christianity. As with any metanarrative it will impact the way you live: you goals, apsirations, how you spend you money etc. So Christianity should, I’m not saying always has**,** manifest itself in society by representing the triune nature of God: unity and diversity- an absolute respect for the individual since God is three persons but also absolute respect for the community since there is one God.; diverse cultural expression reflecting the persons yet with a form representing the unity; hierarchy- Father, Son and Sprirt - but equality of worth of man etc.
What is impossible? You mean impossible to accept? The fact that some people’s ideal of freedom is to rob Peter to pay Paul? Why does anyone think socialism and its democratic cousins have such a death-grip on the minds of the masses? Individually people can see reason and logic and are (in my experience) very receptive to the Austro-libertarian line, but as part of a group they immediately revert to the ‘it’s us or them!’ mentality.
Maybe…but it is irrelevant to me how you name it. I do stand by my words
Totally wrong. I would question your concept of economics as well as success. Keynesianism is not economics.
The consciousness of truth lies within the individual. Each and everyone of us has a different level of such consciousness.
I did not denied the existence of truth. My assertions are not baseless…but I really dont care if you refuse to grasp the truth about AE popularity and acceptance.
A personal level of consciousness. The word preference changes all meaning. I doubt I mentioned the catholic church. It is irrelevant to the question on “truth”.
In the most overarching sense, not wanting freedom really means having no wants whatsoever. Stepping into a cage, locking it and throwing away the key, for instance, is not not wanting freedom. It is wanting to be a in a cage. Also wanting the freedom to be in a cage. Now, if you think that people want to pay taxes, ask the IRS how many donations they receive. Nobody really believes statism. They expect a benefit, which they want.
I do not think societal nihilism in and of itself is to blame. Nihilism can lead to really any type of aesthetic, “the left” just happens to be making the best use of nihilism (even though it shouldn’t really work for them). Intellectuals may be a bit more to blame, but I would put more weight on something like “fashionable hierarchies” that build momentum off themselves. My guess; nihilistic beliefs got absorbed by some other fashionable hierarchy earlier on (probably communism), so actual social nihilism kind of lost it’s meaning and is just one of the many mouth peices and tools the fashionable “left” can use to its advantage without any one being able to question it much (as their intellectuals and methods of relasing info is firmly in their hands).
As far as where did all this start? If I had to guess, an easy connection and beeline of The Reformation - The French Revolution - WW1 - The 60’s seems plausible. They all seem to naturaly progress from one to the other with the intellectual hipsters taking old ideas and making cooler new ones (to be hip) therby entrenching deeper and deeper the batshit crazyness of the day. Humans seem to be slaves to fashion.