|
Captain_Maclaine posted:Anyway, at the end of the NPR piece one of Carter's friend from the bad old days insisted that the point of The Education of Little Tree is actually a quasi-libertarian (or neo-Confederate, if you please) one where the villains are all Meddlesome Government Men and the heroes all Independent I'm inclined to think the friends interpretation, that he had not changed, was correct. There were a bunch of dog whistle words in the discussion of The Education of Little Tree that most people would miss. A big one would be "The Way". So these Cherokee grandparents instill "The Way" in little tree's soul. It's not just government vs free individuals. It's rejection of "meddling government", to be a "Independent In other-words I think it is genuine, in so far as this really is Asa Carter speaking authentically about what he believes. But that what he believes, that Liberty (as defined by Libertarianism) is The Way is a very long con. One still very present in the Tea Party. I really need to read the book. Bar Ran Dun fucked around with this message at 15:45 on Jun 17, 2014 |
#
?
Jun 17, 2014 15:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 22:37 |
|
|
BrandorKP posted:I'm inclined to think the friends interpretation, that he had not changed, was correct. There were a bunch of dog whistle words in the discussion of The Education of Little Tree that most people would miss. A big one would be "The Way". So these Cherokee grandparents instill "The Way" in little tree's soul. Well there's only so much either of us can say since apparently neither of us have read the book itself, and are relying on what Carter's old pal, and others, said about it, but while I'm mildly inclined to agree that there may have been some residual libertarian/Confederate leanings in it, I have to wonder about how "Forrest" apparently shed, or at least deeply concealed, most/all of his revolting and overt racism and anti-Semitism from when he was still Asa. And also because this level of agreement has me feeling a bit weird, I feel compelled to comment that this: quote:It's not just government vs free individuals. It's rejection of "meddling government", to be a "Independent Strike me as you just seeing what you always see, in everything, at all times.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2014 18:02
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:Strike me as you just seeing what you always see, in everything, at all times. Of course, because I'm always looking for it, because everything has to be about that to me. I've figured out what I have in common with these people and it's this. I can also see that it blinds them to that they are saying (and in some cases doing) some of the most horrific things. I so very quickly see what Forrest Carter was doing, because I know how that way of thinking works, because I think in a related way (with some important differences). Why does he have to project Libertarianism / and his particular Christianity onto the Cherokee? Why do I have see everything as about God? Those aren't different questions. When these Libertarians talk about philosophy starting with Aristotle, they squarely identify themselves as being in Platonism / Neo-Platonism. Well that's also in conservative Christianity. Take something like the conservative way of thinking about "rapture" it looks quite a lot like this: "the righteous human being left behind its lesser parts (body and soul) on the earth and the moon, and rose straight toward the world of the forms in the celestial region. (a description of Origen's writings) That's also Neo-Platonism (and there are many more examples I could go into). It's actually a bit weird how it's so wide spread in denominations that are Calvinist. Anyway it's ends up with a unity having to explain everything. My suspicion is that this commonality is how the Libertarianism has weaseled it's way in. But me "seeing what you always see, in everything, at all times" is a direct consequence of my participating in a variation of this too, via theistic monism (specifically Logocentric Trinitarian Christianity). Where I think I dodge the bullet train to blinded by ideals crazy town, is that well, the bread is also just bread. I also participate in the negation of this type of idealism. We'll see if that's enough. If it isn't bust out the popcorn because at the very least it'll be interesting to watch. Captain_Maclaine posted:I have to wonder about how "Forrest" apparently shed, or at least deeply concealed, most/all of his revolting and overt racism and anti-Semitism from when he was still Asa Why do people believe in the myths/stories/ideals they believe in? Because some part of those myths/ideals are real and human. I think that's the part of Mr. Carter that he is showing us in "Education of Little Tree". I've been browsing discussion guides and commentary about the story, this story may end up being as useful to me as looking at the Kochs in figuring this Libertarianism business out. Edit: and that's what I wanted find out from Jrodenfeld that he refused to go into, I wanted to get at the real and human part. Bar Ran Dun fucked around with this message at 16:05 on Jun 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 15:55
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Of course, because I'm always looking for it, because everything has to be about that to me. I've figured out what I have in common with these people and it's this. I can also see that it blinds them to that they are saying (and in some cases doing) some of the most horrific things. I so very quickly see what Forrest Carter was doing, because I know how that way of thinking works, because I think in a related way (with some important differences). Why does he have to project Libertarianism / and his particular Christianity onto the Cherokee? Why do I have see everything as about God? Those aren't different questions. You can basically get the book itself for the price of shipping from Amazon in used condition. It seems counter-productive to me to put so much effort into the interpretation of a work before at least having a glance at the original. VVVV Edited to quote the right person 
Absurd Alhazred fucked around with this message at 19:07 on Jun 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 18:57
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:You can basically get the book itself for the price of shipping from Amazon in used condition. It seems counter-productive to me to put so much effort into the interpretation of a work before at least having a glance at the original. That really wasn't all that much effort, to be honest, and it was in interpreting the NPR story (which I did listen to) about the man, with the book he wrote being a subordinate element thereof (and one specifically on which I had little to say since, as I acknowledged a few posts ago, I've not read). Brandor's gone a bit deeper into possible narrative motivations for The Education of Little Tree, largely as his own wonky worldview demands he examine everything through that peculiar lens, but I left the book more or less along save that it was an odd thing to appear from the pen of a klansman and dedicated segregationist, however reinvented.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 19:03
|
|
|
New York had a long piece on Ted Cruz by Jeffery Toobins: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2014/06/30/140630fa_fact_toobin?currentPage=all The most interesting part to me. Article posted:“In both law and politics, I think the essential battle is the meta-battle of framing the narrative,” Cruz told me. “As Sun Tzu said, Every battle is won before it’s fought. It’s won by choosing the terrain on which it will be fought. So in litigation I tried to ask, What’s this case about? When the judge goes home and speaks to his or her grandchild, who’s in kindergarten, and the child says, ‘Paw-Paw, what did you do today?’ And if you own those two sentences that come out of the judge’s mouth, you win the case. I've been arguing across threads that this libertarian stuff is a religion. Other less loaded ways to say the same thing might be to talk about their use/appropriation of myth, story, national ideal or to use Mr. Cruz's language their use of "meta-narratives." This isn't peculiar to Mr. Cruz either. Roger Ailes does this with Fox. The Kochs do this with their funding of university programs and SuperPac ads. Even down to the small fry, I think Jrodenfeld was trying to do this with his thread. Mr. Cruz is giving away the game (and I suspect he knows this and just doesn't care, thinking that the rest of us won't see it). They aren't doing this just in one area, to one idea either. They want the narrative of Christianity to be Libertarianism. They want the narrative of the Republican party (and / or conservatism) to be Libertarian. They want the want the story/myth of the United States to be one of Libertarianism. If one looks at the way they bring cases to the Supreme Court recently it's the same re-define the narrative tactic. (as I write this, it seems they just won the Hobby Lobby thing) http://live.scotusblog.com/Event/Live_blog_of_opinions__June_30_2014
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 15:33
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Mr. Cruz is giving away the game (and I suspect he knows this and just doesn't care, thinking that the rest of us won't see it) Not only can I not think of a politician more arrogant and supercilious than Ted Cruz, I can't think of a historical figure who was.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 15:40
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Not only can I not think of a politician more arrogant and supercilious than Ted Cruz, I can't think of a historical figure who was. Metternich, maybe?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 17:54
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:I've been arguing across threads that this libertarian stuff is a religion. Other less loaded ways to say the same thing might be to talk about their use/appropriation of myth, story, national ideal or to use Mr. Cruz's language their use of "meta-narratives." This isn't peculiar to Mr. Cruz either. Roger Ailes does this with Fox. The Kochs do this with their funding of university programs and SuperPac ads. Even down to the small fry, I think Jrodenfeld was trying to do this with his thread. Is this really unique to libertarian movements though? Every time I hear someone say "Libertarianism is a religion", and then point to a figure like Cruz or Rothbard, it doesn't really contribute to anything. The use of myth and narrative as populist motivators is widespread across pretty much every political or ideological movement, including the status quo.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 19:58
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Not only can I not think of a politician more arrogant and supercilious than Ted Cruz, I can't think of a historical figure who was. Napoleon Bonaparte? -EDIT- The entirety of pre-revolution French Aristocracy, actually. Who What Now fucked around with this message at 20:12 on Jun 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 20:10
|
|
|
Pictured below: the point at which Napoleon became less arrogant than Ted Cruz. Cruz would have just kept going until he got shot in the head by one of the four dudes still left alive.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 20:18
|
|
|
LogisticEarth posted:Is this really unique to libertarian movements though? Every time I hear someone say "Libertarianism is a religion", and then point to a figure like Cruz or Rothbard, it doesn't really contribute to anything. The use of myth and narrative as populist motivators is widespread across pretty much every political or ideological movement, including the status quo. Some religious motives were present in neoliberalism. You have a benevolent God (free market) that makes the world a beautiful place. The virtuous people - the ones that are diligent and industrious - are rewarded with wealth and prosperity, while the lazy parasites are left in poverty. Economists are similar to priests who interpret the omens and announce the commandments of the deity. Socialism is a bad thing, because it interferes with the god's will. This narrative only became stronger with the wake of the crisis - the priests announced that humanity has sinned too much and angered the Lord, who decided to withdraw the prosperity he used to provide. Now we have to make a heavy penance to become worthy in the eyes of the God again. Libertarianism can be viewed as a heretical movement inside the church - like protestantism or some earlier heresies. No priests, no kings, they colluded with the devil to remain in power! We can be virtuous enough to commune with the God without any middlemen! Surely, if we purge ourselves of everything that comes from the devil, the Lord will find us worthy! Of course, the same narrative is present in many other ideologies. Religious symbolism was present in our culture since time immemorial, and it's flexible enough to be repurposed over and over. However, neoliberalism and libertatianism differ from their predecessors little enough to be very recognizable.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 21:08
|
|
|
Gantolandon posted:Some religious motives were present in neoliberalism. You have a benevolent God (free market) that makes the world a beautiful place. The virtuous people - the ones that are diligent and industrious - are rewarded with wealth and prosperity, while the lazy parasites are left in poverty. Economists are similar to priests who interpret the omens and announce the commandments of the deity. Socialism is a bad thing, because it interferes with the god's will. This narrative only became stronger with the wake of the crisis - the priests announced that humanity has sinned too much and angered the Lord, who decided to withdraw the prosperity he used to provide. Now we have to make a heavy penance to become worthy in the eyes of the God again. This is a beautiful explanation.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 21:34
|
|
|
Gantolandon posted:Some religious motives were present in neoliberalism. You have a benevolent God (free market) that makes the world a beautiful place. The virtuous people - the ones that are diligent and industrious - are rewarded with wealth and prosperity, while the lazy parasites are left in poverty. Economists are similar to priests who interpret the omens and announce the commandments of the deity. Socialism is a bad thing, because it interferes with the god's will. This narrative only became stronger with the wake of the crisis - the priests announced that humanity has sinned too much and angered the Lord, who decided to withdraw the prosperity he used to provide. Now we have to make a heavy penance to become worthy in the eyes of the God again. Your Protestant comparison is a good one vis a vis liberalism, but on the broader scale it just seems like you're shoehorning in terms into the pre-determined narrative that it's a religion. Certainly there's are groups out there that are similar to what you describe, but that's more the Tea Party brand of vulgar libertarianism. Again, the "religion" descriptor isn't unique to the broader body of liberatarianism any more than any other group, outside of accepting the basic premises. I mean, with the same shallow premise you can brush off Socialism/Communism as a religion because some groups revere Marx's deterministic theory of history as undeniable prophecy. That doesn't mean it actually is, and as you're probably aware various free-market groups make the same "religion" accusations of the left. Point being, it's often used as a hollow smear to discredit one's opponent as a shallow-minded zealot, and as such doesn't really contribute to the conversation.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 21:58
|
|
|
http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/john.cochrane/research/papers/after_aca.pdf A fairly An-Cap friend of mine linked this to me while we were discussing the Hobby Lobby ruling (we derailed into discussion of health care economics) and I'm working on parsing it, and why the idea of this man having his way with health care unsettles me. Like, on it's face it seems reasonable - have a baseline 'keep everyone alive' health care, and people can pay for more than that. But the whole thing honestly just gives me the willies and I need a better reason than that to say I think something is wrong. Like I think it's a mix of the anti-Union stuff, the Red Scare phrasing, and that I feel he handwaves away the issue of care for the destitute. I mean, part of it is also that it's from an An-Cap friend and John Cochrane is Libertarian, but again I want to figure out a better reason this paper leaves a bad taste in my mouth than that. Anyone care to help me dig through it and discuss? It's not a bad read, Cochrane has a reasonable conversational tone.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 22:14
|
|
|
LogisticEarth posted:Your Protestant comparison is a good one vis a vis liberalism, but on the broader scale it just seems like you're shoehorning in terms into the pre-determined narrative that it's a religion. Certainly there's are groups out there that are similar to what you describe, but that's more the Tea Party brand of vulgar libertarianism. Again, the "religion" descriptor isn't unique to the broader body of liberatarianism any more than any other group, outside of accepting the basic premises. Not exactly, no. Communism mostly used another powerful narrative - corrupt elites vs noble commoners. There is no deity that punishes the wicked and rewards the virtuous, only a pile of goodies and those bastards that prevent everyone else from taking their share. Because of its roots, it always had the aspirations to be as scientific as possible, so religious elements were always pretty weak. Of course, both ideologies are much more complicated than that, but your average citizen isn't going to read several books about Austrian economy, analyze them thoroughly and grab "Das Kapital" to see the problem from an opposite view. They are going to grasp a powerful, narrative that's not too different from what they already know and get back to their lives. A vulgarized version of an ideology is the one that's most likely to spread beyond a group of philosophers.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 22:54
|
|
|
LogisticEarth posted:Is this really unique to libertarian movements though? Every time I hear someone say "Libertarianism is a religion", and then point to a figure like Cruz or Rothbard, it doesn't really contribute to anything. The use of myth and narrative as populist motivators is widespread across pretty much every political or ideological movement, including the status quo. The reason I'd say some forms of libertarianism are a religion is because many prominent libertarians present their beliefs as an entirely a priori system. Libertarianism is seen as an unchanging and immutable code that springs fully formed from the none-aggression principle. Sure, most libertarians probably believe that the majority will be better off under a libertarian system, but that isn't how they justify libertarianism. Instead they claim that its the only moral system regardless of outcome. The fact that so many prominent libertarians claim that its always the only correct and moral system, regardless of any context and regardless of outcome, is what makes it seem like a religion, even when compared to traditional liberalism or communism or most other belief systems. All those other beliefs tend to justify themselves based on outcome - Liberatianism by contrast has many adherents who treat the none aggression principle as a literal divine commandment.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 06:39
|
|
|
Magres posted:http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/john.cochrane/research/papers/after_aca.pdf Well, I can tackle one thing right now: the Toyota Production System, aka TPS, the first real implementation of lean manufacturing. He doesn't directly mention it, but it's why Toyota is on his list of success stories. Lean is an amazing source of profit increase, when applied correctly. The best summary of lean that I've heard is "A bunch of buzzwards meaning increase value and decrease waste." Value is the actual usefulness of the product delivered to the customer, waste is any costs incurred during manufacturing that don't contribute value added to the product. Now, lean can and should be applied to medicine. It would be profitable for the healthcare providers, and provide better service to customers. And here's the problem, that the author doesn't understand: it's been shown that if you focus on eliminating waste to the exclusion of increasing value, or as anything but a method of increasing value, it doesn't work. Delivering value to the customer must be the primary driving force behind innovation for the company. And the author has no interest in doing that. When he claims that we can't afford Cadillac-level healthcare for everyone, he concludes that we should just provide less service for some people (because... clearly they deserve it less? Really, he never addresses any of the moral issues with capitalist healthcare, which is the major argument against it.) Lean's response is to ask WHY we can't provide it, and then to fix that, eliminating waste in order to create value for the customer, and improve profits that way. Why CAN'T everyone have an MRI today, right by their workplace? Not enough machines? Okay, WHY aren't there enough machines? Too expensive? Not enough demand? WHY? In doing so, they would discover that emergency care is incredibly expensive, and they would offer preventative care instead, at lower rates because it would minimize the number of emergency cases (this serves as a decent counter against his main proposal, especially since his argument is predicated solely around making money.) They would probably find that it is beneficial to provide everyone with as good health care as possible, since a healthier society is less expensive to treat. They would find that offering healthcare to their employees is a good idea, since it means they get sick less, they would be more productive and happier employees, and they would be less likely to spread or catch diseases from the patients (hey, turns out that providing health insurance for your workers increases value added!) And so on, and so on. In short: lean manufacturing and eliminating waste in health care is a wonderful idea, as a way of improving value delivered to the customer. Value added should always be the driving factor behind innovation. However, the author of this article doesn't understand a goddamn thing about lean, so he should under no circumstances be involved.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 06:43
|
|
|
LogisticEarth posted:Is this really unique to libertarian movements though? Every time I hear someone say "Libertarianism is a religion", and then point to a figure like Cruz or Rothbard, it doesn't really contribute to anything. The use of myth and narrative as populist motivators is widespread across pretty much every political or ideological movement, including the status quo. No it's not in anyway unique. I think the status quo in something like foreign policy, realism, is a religion too (but I would argue that realism is not a hidden religion, it's explicit in origin in Christianity) What is different, is that they (the Libertarians at the top, not the followers) are aware of all this and they are aware of how faith works and they are manipulating people in an intentional way. They know their thought is religious (although some of them won't ever say or acknowledge that, because you know we believe in "Reason" not God  ) and they intend to transform the world with it. And they win some very real fights by doing this. An absolute can be a cudgel. It doesn't matter what the specific absolute is, the question is what are they swinging it at? Things like reproductive rights. If Liberty is absolute, unconditioned, and they get people to really believe that, they can build logical and sound arguments on that absolute for anything. No restriction or restrained or regulation would be allowed on LIBERTY. All they have to do at that point is frame any issue as one of Liberty. We then get arguments for "religious Liberty" that remove the ability to make personal moral choices from individuals and arguments for freedom of speech that silence the rest of us on a corporate alter. If we miss that the root is religious we end up bashing our heads against tautologies when interactions occur. We also miss and fail to understand the way they are arguing.I would agree all groups use myth and narrative to try to get what they want from other groups. But not all groups elevate a particular myth or narrative to absoluteness. It is as dangerous to treat free markets, "freedom to", property rights, or contracts as absolutely true and unquestionable as it is say the bible is the infallible Word of God. So I would say "Libertarianism is a religion" is definitely relevant to responding to Libertarians. And then I'd go on to say that it has the characteristics of harmful or corrupted religion (and I've even argued demonic religion). That second part contributes options. Why? Because, there are specific historical responses to specific variations of corrupted religion. People have responded to this or that specific distortion before, so what did they do? Gantolandon posted:Not exactly, no. Communism mostly used another powerful narrative - corrupt elites vs noble commoners. There is no deity that punishes the wicked and rewards the virtuous, only a pile of goodies and those bastards that prevent everyone else from taking their share. Because of its roots, it always had the aspirations to be as scientific as possible, so religious elements were always pretty weak. But that powerful narrative is the center of history in communism. When one makes a statement like this: "The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles." Marx defines a center of history. Class difference becomes a generative principle that drives all history . That's as much having a deity as thinking that the cross is the center of history. It's an unveiling (revelatory) statement about humanity. Being scientific after swallowing that, well that doesn't make participating in that foundational idea any less religious. LogisticEarth, Why does religious have to be a hollow smear though? And it's this again, all groups use myth and narrative to try to get what they want from other groups. But not all groups elevate a particular myth or narrative to absoluteness (or universalize it). Some communists/socialists definitely elevate their narrative to an absolute, but not all of them. When talking about the ones that do, why would it be a problem to analyze them in religious terms?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 15:42
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:LogisticEarth, I didn't say it had to be, I said some people, and certainly here in D&D, use it as such. I'm interested in the analysis, but also object to overly broad proclamations that lump the whole collection of libertarian groups together. So, maybe a discussion of "libertarianism as religion" rather than "libertarianism is religion". Going back to Ted Cruz, he may be using religious methodology to tap into populist libertarian sentiment, but you can't paint the whole movement with that brush.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 17:20
|
|
|
Are there any prominent contemporary Libertarians who don't rely heavily on the none aggression principle?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 17:51
|
|
|
LogisticEarth posted:Going back to Ted Cruz, he may be using religious methodology to tap into populist libertarian sentiment, but you can't paint the whole movement with that brush. I'll be very specific as why I'm doing it. There is a process to how religious dogmas develop, one finds a description of that in something like Harnack or even in Barth. But I like this particular one (because I'm nuts for Tillich): "" posted:Don't forget all these steps: Let's look at the libertarians with that process in mind. "First, the natural thought, which is in every religion." This is "non aggression" or alternately we can use one of their words, praxeology. They're saying it's true that one should not harm others or alternately that "complete freedom" is true. I've seen those things equated by them too. "Second, the methodological development of doctrines." This is the Austrian school. They start with their axiom and they reach conclusions, see Mises, Rothbard, etc. This is what that is and not in a it's like this sense, in a it calls itself this sense. In a schools of thought have "doxein" (opinions) reached methodically sense. "Third, the acceptance of some doctrines as protective doctrines against distortions." I'm going to go with an example we all watched in the Jrodenfeld thread. What does this step look like? These ideas (or their precursors) were used to justify slavery and segregation. Those are examples of harmful distortions of an idea. They come up with mitigations, restrictions, rules to try prevent those. The stuff Jrodenfeld was turning to when pressed on this racism, that's the type of thing happening in this step. "Fourth, the legalization of these doctrines as parts of the canonic law." I've already pointed out and linked to the Koch canon. The other sub groups have their own reading lists. They develop argument from these reading lists. These start internal, but they end up as legal arguements outside of the internal discussion. I'd argue something like Alito's "compelling interest test" is just a legalized developed thought resulting from system created by the methodical exploration of "non aggression"/complete freedom" (ie. praxelogy) So this process is happening right now and it's affecting our lives right now. We can see the process of legalization of their thought happening. The last step: "FIFTH, the acceptance of these doctrines as the foundation not only of the Church but also of the state, because the state has no other content than the content the Church gives it., so that he who is supposed to undermine this content not only undermines the Church but also the state. He is not only a heretic who must be excommunicated; he is also a criminal who must be delivered into the hands of the civil authorities to punish him as a criminal." This also is happening right now. Specific expression this rear end in a top hat : http://issa.house.gov/ Also the whole criminalization of immigrants is also an expression of this. I am very far from the first to characterize the Austrian school as dogmatic. And I've seen examples of that criticism going way back. But this is why I'm jumping from "as" to "is". What are we all doing right now? We are undermining the content of libertarianism and all from pretty widely varying perspectives/ideologies. We're going after their content the foundational natural thought. If they manage to control the government via chestbursting the GOP, and if I'm right that they are a dogmatic religion (not like one are one) seeking theocracy and theonomy.. it's not good. It's incredibly worrying. LogisticEarth posted:you can't paint the whole movement with that brush. In so far as they sign on to the action axiom, to praxeology, or to a variant, (and they do if they rock out Mises ) I can paint them with this brush. And if I'm correct and they are attempting to take over the ideals of the country I live in, and the religion I participate in with their own dogmatic religion then the stakes are very high. And as for "as" vs "is" I do a lot of "as" religion argument on SA. It's my schtick here, and I probably overdo it occasionally. But this isn't a "as" situation. They've taken the complete freedom of the enlightenment (of classical liberalism) and merged it with Reason. Look at something like this magazine http://reason.com/about. What are they saying symbolically, that Reason is "free mind and free markets". Again, Mises says this explicitly too. Action (praxis) and Reason (logos) with a content of personal freedom as the center of history, praxeology. That's not like a religious statement, it's not "as". It is a religious statement. It's also ironic. To turn the enlightenment reaction against (and process of dissolution of) dogma into a religious dogma. Bar Ran Dun fucked around with this message at 19:44 on Jul 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 19:33
|
|
|
I would say that the "natural thought" is "I want a lot of poo poo and I don't want to be responsible to society for what I've gained" and that the post hoc rationalization to be found in ideas like the nonaggression principle would fall under the methodological development of doctrines. That's a small quibble though, interesting post.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 20:27
|
|
|
Cross posting this from the USPol thread. There is a great article on Libertarians and An-Cap style anarchists today in the post. It's about a "Gathering of the Juggalos" style event held by the New Hampshire "Free State Project" called The Procupine Freedom Festival The name comes from the idea of minding your own business (like the timid porcupine, or whatever) but defending yourself when provoked. Some Choice quotes: quote:This is the libertarian version of Burning Man., where a kumbaya discussion around the campfire goes something like this: Starts off pretty well with a complete, and willful, misunderstanding of taxes. quote:Once a year for the past 11 years, this campground in the northern part of the Granite State turns into a libertarian utopia. And this year, roughly 2,000 people — mostly white men — have paid between $45 and $100 to experience for one week what life would be like without the onerous mechanisms of laws, if the market ruled to the exclusion of all else. No surprise there. quote:There’s a kid having a bad trip in the bathroom, and in this hectic, anti-hierarchical festival, Eyre is the closest thing to an authority figure around. quote:Two girls huffing nitrous oxide from a balloon and a guy holding a needle come by. The guy with the needle says he has a chemical mixture that if injected will lessen the effects of hallucinogens. “I have the solution right in my hands,” he says. Eyre decides it’s a bad idea to inject the longhaired guy with a mystery drug — even if it could work in theory — and says he won’t allow it to happen.  quote:Anyone can act as a de facto security guard here, but members of the “Church of the Sword” — a group from Manchester that doesn’t focus much on worship but does start its meetings with a “ritual of combat” involving foam swords — constitute the only organized group. LARPing group providing security... quote:At an adjacent tent, a guy discusses the benefits of a paleo diet. If you stay healthy enough, he says, perhaps you can live long enough to make it to the “singularity” where you can live forever by tapping into artificial intelligence. Eat like a caveman, he says, so you can live long enough to become a robot. This is really the most poignant way of describing Libertarians and their I've ever read. The whole article is well worth the read, just full of absolute insanity and hypocrisy. The best part is when they talk about the literal "free market" in the center of the camp and how even the "live free of die" An-Caps end up enforcing rules for the good of their "free society". I can't help up wish I were rich enough to crash the gently caress out of this party. Move in with a literal security force and just gently caress with everyone. Buy out everyone's inventory, use my security to push out the other groups or just straight up buy out the other guys. Ruin everything they love about the even with the letter of the law and in direct opposition to the spirit of it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 20:32
|
|
|
I remember the same shift happening at the Occupy spinoff in my city. No one was willing to openly go about creating some kind of formal structure for resolving disputes or making decisions. That didn't stop a clear hierarchy from emerging, complete with people who acted as de facto security/dispute resolvers/administrators, it just meant that the hierarchy was completely unaccountable and had no transparency, and it also meant that when somebody sexually harassed or assaulted someone else or decided to use donation money to buy themselves cigarettes there was no way to deal with them. Of course in practice I don't think this is how a Libertarian society would operate. If celebrated Libertarian authors like Hans Herman-Hoppe are any indication then the endgame for Libertarianism is a thousand small tyrants, with every individual "community" free to enforce whatever restrictions or met out whatever punishments it chooses (indeed, Hoppe specifies that enemies of liberty will essentially be treated as subhuman, since libertarianism can't afford to tolerate people who don't share its ideals). And while some Libertarians will claim that people will only participate in these communities voluntarily its never really clear how the freedom of those individuals will be enforced when there's literally no public authority who can protect them. Its only a mild exaggeration to say libertarianism has been tried: it's called feudalism. There's literally no public sector - even the government is someone's private property, and all laws are actually just the private regulations of the landlord (i.e., the "King"). People are so free that they can sign contracts that are binding on their children (i.e. serfs) and communities are, by and large, self policing. There's no single court system and often people are free to shop around between multiple courts to try and get the one that is best for them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 20:56
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Its only a mild exaggeration to say libertarianism has been tried: it's called feudalism. There's literally no public sector - even the government is someone's private property, and all laws are actually just the private regulations of the landlord (i.e., the "King"). People are so free that they can sign contracts that are binding on their children (i.e. serfs) and communities are, by and large, self policing. There's no single court system and often people are free to shop around between multiple courts to try and get the one that is best for them. I feel like this is OP worthy, because it's spot on and why Libertarianism is such a goddamned dumb idea.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 21:20
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Its only a mild exaggeration to say libertarianism has been tried: it's called feudalism. There's literally no public sector - even the government is someone's private property, and all laws are actually just the private regulations of the landlord (i.e., the "King"). People are so free that they can sign contracts that are binding on their children (i.e. serfs) and communities are, by and large, self policing. There's no single court system and often people are free to shop around between multiple courts to try and get the one that is best for them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 22:21
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Its only a mild exaggeration to say libertarianism has been tried: it's called feudalism. There's literally no public sector - even the government is someone's private property, and all laws are actually just the private regulations of the landlord (i.e., the "King"). People are so free that they can sign contracts that are binding on their children (i.e. serfs) and communities are, by and large, self policing. There's no single court system and often people are free to shop around between multiple courts to try and get the one that is best for them. Weren't times like the Industrial Revolution much like what libertarians want as well? I haven't studied this in great detail, so I may be totally off base, but it was my understanding that there was relatively little government regulation, and the result was that the 'captains of industry' indulged in things like 18-hour workdays, child labour and hiring Pinkerton mercenaries to beat the poo poo out of everyone who went on strike.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 11:11
|
|
|
BreakAtmo posted:Weren't times like the Industrial Revolution much like what libertarians want as well? I haven't studied this in great detail, so I may be totally off base, but it was my understanding that there was relatively little government regulation, and the result was that the 'captains of industry' indulged in things like 18-hour workdays, child labour and hiring Pinkerton mercenaries to beat the poo poo out of everyone who went on strike. Exactly, except you're slightly wrong about Libertarians desire for deregulation of labour laws resulting in child labour. For Libertarians, child labour is an economic necessity to drive down the cost of labour for ideal wage conditions, rather than an unfortunate side effect of eliminating labour laws. Also, eliminating child labour laws allow parents the freedom to sell their property (ie. their child) into indentured servitude.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 11:28
|
|
|
El Pollo Blanco posted:Exactly, except you're slightly wrong about Libertarians desire for deregulation of labour laws resulting in child labour. For Libertarians, child labour is an economic necessity to drive down the cost of labour for ideal wage conditions, rather than an unfortunate side effect of eliminating labour laws. So the only thing I got wrong was that I assumed libertarians would have a shred of decency? Huh. Makes sense.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 11:40
|
|
|
El Pollo Blanco posted:Exactly, except you're slightly wrong about Libertarians desire for deregulation of labour laws resulting in child labour. For Libertarians, child labour is an economic necessity to drive down the cost of labour for ideal wage conditions, rather than an unfortunate side effect of eliminating labour laws. I actually don't agree with this post all that much, if only because it comes off as mustache twirling cartoon villainy, something you don't actually see from many libertarians. While it is true that certain libertarians (Murray Rothbard) have argued for a "Free flowing market of children" the idea was never suggested that it was for labor or abuse, but instead as an alternative to existing adoption programs. Its a dumb way to handle things, but it is in no way a suggestion that we should just be putting children back to work in the mines. Child labour would fall under the 'unfortunate side effect' aspect for every libertarian I've ever met or spoken to.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 14:59
|
|
|
See, that's the exact problem that I, and a lot of others, have with Libertarian ideas. "Well, sure, tons of other people would be hosed, but I would be ok." They may not be twirling mustaches with glee, but they certainly don't care either.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 15:10
|
|
|
Caros posted:I actually don't agree with this post all that much, if only because it comes off as mustache twirling cartoon villainy, something you don't actually see from many libertarians. 2004 Libertarian Party platform: "We oppose laws infringing on children's rights to work or learn, such as child labor laws and compulsory education laws."
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 15:20
|
|
|
The libertarian narrative is that child labor helps to boost household income and raise people out of poverty, and that once out of poverty child labor fades away. For most of human history it was the norm, however it was already being eliminated by rising productivity by the time labor laws were introduced. In modern times labor laws complicate things and lead to unpaid and under the table labor, as well as villianize benign children's work. That's the short version anyway, as I'm phone posting. A simplistic narrative, and as such has lots of problems, but its not a cartoon-villain "Back to the mines Timmy!" story.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 15:22
|
|
|
Krugman op-ed on things discussed http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/07/opinion/paul-krugman-conservative-delusions-about-inflation.html?_r=0 Beliefs, Facts and Money, Paul Krugman posted:On Sunday The Times published an article by the political scientist Brendan Nyhan about a troubling aspect of the current American scene — the stark partisan divide over issues that should be simply factual, like whether the planet is warming or evolution happened. It’s common to attribute such divisions to ignorance, but as Mr. Nyhan points out, the divide is actually worse among those who are seemingly better informed about the issues. When faith — including faith-based economics — meets evidence, evidence doesn’t stand a chance. I think Krugman is going to (or has) figure (d) it out. Arguments of and from evidence are non-sequitur arguments when addressing foundations which are accepted by faith. There is a Hegel quote: "Philosophy has made itself the handmaiden of a faith once more." Helsing used the term " a priori". It's the before evidence and experience part that is the problem with Libertarianism, they can can change all the arguments that come after that as they need to. But when one says something like this (and it's a great goddamn line): "Reality, however, declined to cooperate." That's going after the object of faith! That's saying the story of Libertarianism, the meta narrative, the myth, is not true and then going further. To say this is to frame the Austrian economics myth as rejected by, denied, renounced, forsaken by reality itself! It is the same as to call it: "God forsaken!" Telling a story of libertarianism in a "descent into dogma" is attacking it's foundation. Telling the story of how that foundation is detached from reality is attacking that foundation! Telling the stories of how libertarian ideas do not result in the things they promise is attacking it's foundation! Saying that it is an "utter failure in prognostication" (prophecy is a synonym of prognostication), that it's prophecies are false, is an attack on that foundation! I think Krugman has the answer of how to go after this Austrian stuff right in front of him in the things he has written and might not recognize it yet. The answer is to make the very questions he is asking about Libertarianism the narrative of Libertarianism. If this stuff is recognized as a dogmatic religion, then one can argue against it in terms of it being a faith in a particular myth (one that claims to be the true myth).
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 17:03
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Telling a story of libertarianism in a "descent into dogma" is attacking it's foundation. Telling the story of how that foundation is detached from reality is attacking that foundation! Telling the stories of how libertarian ideas do not result in the things they promise is attacking it's foundation! Saying that it is an "utter failure in prognostication" (prophecy is a synonym of prognostication), that it's prophecies are false, is an attack on that foundation! Unless I'm missing something here, this has already been the boilerplate anti-libertarian message for years if not decades. I don't think this is the silver bullet you're looking for. I mean, Mises even says that in Human Action, if new information comes to light about the basic premises he used to build his a prior system were somehow testable in the future, that praxeology/economics should be reevaluated. The question is if the basic premises he laid our are thoroughly disproven enough so as to be unusable. An important thing to remember was that praxeology was never intended to be a complete theory if the universe, even though Rothbard and others often throw it about as such. It was something that was meant to be used in concert with scientific data and historical inquiry.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 18:09
|
|
|
I was wondering if anyone has any data on LVM's time as the finance minister of Austria. I have read that it was quite disastrous on blogs, but do not have any historical documentation.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 18:39
|
|
|
An individual libertarian will not be very impressed, but “introducing a narrative” of the gold standard, etc., as a faith-based policy could weaken its popularity. Indeed, a similar narrative has been introduced to weaken socialist ideology, with some success. An individual socialist will not be very impressed, but the narrative goes that socialists already came to power in many parts of the world, and reality has declined to cooperate in all cases. Socialists examine each and every real world failure to attain long term prosperity, and announce that it does not ‘count’ as a failure of socialism because reasons. Of course, opponents can spin the story of socialism as a descent into dogma – the dogma of the Platonic philosopher-king who rules over a populace as harmoniously as a mind would rule over a healthy body.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 18:47
|
|
|
LogisticEarth posted:Unless I'm missing something here, this has already been the boilerplate anti-libertarian message for years if not decades. I don't think this is the silver bullet you're looking for. Yeah it's in no way new. And it needs to be coupled with renewal. And I'm looking back to those things. What popped into my head was "We need to Born in the USA" this poo poo. I think it's a continual thing that has to be done over and over again in each new context. In another context it looked like this: "If we send a generation out now, while we ourselves doubt: "I wonder if they have it in 'em. "Been taught a lot of nonsense in the last twenty years. Learned to distrust everything. Don't believe that you can get anywhere by hard work. Don't believe that anything in the world is worth fighting for," and turn our eyes away, we send them out to danger and perhaps to disgrace." In yet another context (way back on this one) it might look something along the lines of: treating a lie as the truth and worshiping a creation as creator. There also has to be competing alternative narratives that are in more line with reality. But make no mistake, these are also constructions. Let's look at a historical example, the civil rights movement. Something like the story of Rosa Parks is a constructed narrative. My understanding is that it was planned, she was selected, and an active participant in the whole thing. I see a lack of myth vs myth now. I see plenty of evidence/education/rationality vs myth. LogisticEarth posted:An important thing to remember was that praxeology was never intended to be a complete theory if the universe, even though Rothbard and others often throw it about as such. It was something that was meant to be used in concert with scientific data and historical inquiry. Absolutely, and Jesus didn't go around talking about himself as the Christ and part of the Trinity, ever the see the "Shield of the Trinity" that's certainly not from Jesus. People build tautologies and systems around what they think is the truth, to protect it. It doesn't matter if Mises (Marx or Jesus for that matter) intended it to be that way, what matters is that the various groups of people who came after, went on to treat the idea as an absolute Truth. We should be aware of the process and intentional (and questioning) about both their and our own dogma.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 20:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 22:37 |
|
|
Caros posted:I actually don't agree with this post all that much, if only because it comes off as mustache twirling cartoon villainy, something you don't actually see from many libertarians. I understand that Rothbard was concerned with the violation of the rights of children by the state, and that, like all libertarians, invoking the free market as an alternative to any government mandated form of adoption or transferral of the 'ownership' of the child was intended to ensure the child would end up in a place where their rights were not violated (either by the state or their adoptive parents). However, the ongoing effects of such a radical return to a Victorian-esque workhouse system that would undoubtedly flourish as a result of a free market of children, would seem to preclude any of the ethical reasoning for why a free market for children should exist. The narrative that giving children the right to work, and thus lift themselves or their family out of poverty has no non-anecdotal historical precedent, which is why the belief that repealing child labour laws would result in the 'unfortunate side effect' of child labour would be inconsistent with the belief that allowing children to work is a net benefit for their self-determination, and ongoing welfare.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 02:04
|
|