|
Caros posted:Do you have an example of something that is logically true, but that would not be subject to falsification based on real world evidence? identity statements: A = A definitonal explications: All bachelors are unmarried men. statements about logical entailment: ((p->q) ^ p) |- q or deductions from self-evident truths: I exist (because I can think). Austrianism's axioms are supposedly in the latter category (as Soviet Space Dog mentioned, they're specifically not like math), though obviously they don't hold up as well as Descartes' famous claim. QuarkJets posted:Jrod claimed that Austrian economics is scientific, and I pointed out that a philosophy which claims that it cannot be tested by observation is the opposite of scientific. So did you not read jrod's post, or did you not read mine?
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 03:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 15:31 |
|
|
aparmenideanmonad posted:VitalSigns already posted a good response to this, but other examples are things like... These also have one thing in common: they are statements purely about how ideas relate to each other in an abstract manner. Whether those ideas are themselves true is irrelevant. This logically entails another idea: we express identity [A=A] and self-evident truths [I think before I am] in terms of our ability to create and interrelate symbols [All A are B, therefore A=B], to a high degree of complexity [((p->q) ^ p) |- q]. This is a basic idea in philosophy, literally Philosophy 101: a logically consistent argument in which conclusions follow from it's premises is called a valid argument, not a true argument. This is also defined concisely by Wikipedia as such: quote:A formula of a formal language is a valid formula if and only if it is true under every possible interpretation of the language. In propositional logic, they are tautologies. However, there is no known mechanism for determining the truth of every possible interpretation of a word. The lack of intrinsic connection between definition and meaning is now widely accepted to be impossible to prove. The closest approximation is empirical observation, but this has the same ultimate restrictions on symbolic language as logic, math, and English, with one exception: we may say that at the time of the observation our definition of the symbols involved were as congruent to reality as we are currently able to make them and this holds true if and only if (a) they are based on observations which are both repeatable and falsifiable by subsequent observation and (b) they have not yet been contradicted by observations which satisfy condition (a). Edit: JRod: it follows from my argument that you may make either or both of the two following arguments which resemble yours: 1. A hypothetical completely free market is a useful theoretical construct, similar to an ideal gas in thermodynamics, or, 2. Austrian economics uses logic to create hypothesis which are falsifiable by observation, but which have not yet been to your satisfaction. 2a. As a corollary to (2), there may be constraints on observation of human behavior similar to those on other complex systems which are very far out of thermodynamic equilibrium, for example, weather. Hodgepodge fucked around with this message at 04:54 on Oct 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 04:41
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Austrians also use empiricism and observation, but not to refute the logical and necessary implications of human action. This isn't how logic work. Logic is a wonderful tool, but only in the hands of someone who understand what they are doing with it. Do you understand what logic is? Because I honestly don't think you do. Logic is the structure of an argument. It's how ideas flow together and lead to conclusions. But because something is logical doesn't mean that it's true. Logic is ultimately shaded by our knowledge, our understanding of that knowledge, and our experiences with that knowledge. Saying something is logical just means that there's no internal flaw with the logic. I claim that your statement here is illogical to its extreme. After all, if logic is a tool used to construct an argument, and an argument is the process in which we try to gain new knowledge, then to reject new knowledge that goes against your pre-existing logic is to not use logic for its intended purpose. All of these things you say are necessary and logical are only that way because you say so. Logic and reason mean nothing until they hit reality and work with the facts. And frankly, that's what your arguments all lack. There's nothing for me to argue with from your posts because you just post thesis statements after thesis statements without ever getting to the meat and potatoes. I can't argue that hypothetically, raising prices lower sales unless you give me the facts to support that statement. And yes, just because it's simple to you doesn't mean you just get to say it's self evident. Otherwise, it's self evident that I will live forever because I haven't died yet.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 05:00
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Austrians also use empiricism and observation, but not to refute the logical and necessary implications of human action. So if someone presents us with some study that purports to explain how raising the minimum wage has no adverse effect on employment, immediately we can deduce that there is something amiss with such a study, since it contradicts a basic axiom of economics. The disemployment effects of a marginal minimum wage hike might be small and hard to capture in a given empirical study, but it exists nonetheless and MUST exist. Outlawing jobs below an arbitrary wage rate must necessarily artificially limit the scope of potential economic transaction that humans can engage in. I want to hang this up on my fridge it's so beautiful. Can I apply this to Maoism and just reject any and all evidence that Mao's economic policies were ever not totally awesome and in reality benefited China? Yeah okay you can try to bring up "empiricism" and "observing phenomenon" and "recorded history" but all that didn't happen cause that would mean Maoism is wrong so looks like the Four Pests Campaign was a resounding success and if it looks like food production went down, it's only because of the existence of the Free Market made it do that. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 08:05
|
|
|
DrProsek posted:I want to hang this up on my fridge it's so beautiful. Can I apply this to Maoism and just reject any and all evidence that Mao's economic policies were ever not totally awesome and in reality benefited China? Yeah okay you can try to bring up "empiricism" and "observing phenomenon" and "recorded history" but all that didn't happen cause that would mean Maoism is wrong so looks like the Four Pests Campaign was a resounding success and if it looks like food production went down, it's only because of the existence of the Free Market made it do that. No no no, you see the difference is that he is right. You don't get to ignore evidence because that evidence clearly proves that you are wrong, and since Mao's views weren't proven to be a priori logically correct, that evidence can clearly be used to disprove your ideas.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 08:23
|
|
|
Caros posted:No no no, you see the difference is that he is right. You don't get to ignore evidence because that evidence clearly proves that you are wrong, and since Mao's views weren't proven to be a priori logically correct, that evidence can clearly be used to disprove your ideas. pfft, is that all? 1. Humans Act 2. If two people engage in a voluntary transaction, it must mean that they both expect to leave a third party worse off to benefit themselves (either directly or indirectly). 3. Ergo, all society must be built around eliminating private free transactions, and move to all transactions being between the workers collectively and the state, or the state dictating demands to the workers who are not voluntarily participating and thus are not in voluntary transaction. QED nationalize everything pls
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 08:45
|
|
|
Yo D&D libertarians, whats the appropriate response to the Ebola epidemic? Serious question; in my Sub-Saharan African policy work, all I've dealt with are ideal libertarian systems and how to convince individuals to trust me, pay slightly more in taxes, and have an impersonal bureaucracy because unrestrained capitalism doesn't let individuals advance by their bootstraps at a faster rate than new individuals needing to advance by their bootstraps are produced.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 08:48
|
|
|
aparmenideanmonad posted:Ahh yes the "fun" part of D&D. Yes, I read the posts. Remember when you said that Austrianism was automatically a kooky cult because it rejects observational falsification? That's false. The first part of my post was addressing why you're wrong about this being a simple structural defect of the view. The rest of my post was in agreement with the spirit of your criticism and was my take on why the rejection of empiricism makes Austrianism a bad view. I agree that people who claim Austrianism is through-and-through scientific are either mistaken or are using words like 'scientific' in extremely obtuse ways. Either way it's a dumb thing to say. But just because someone says dumb things doesn't mean their views are wrong. Consider my post an attempt to go beyond the ad hominem and offer some meatier criticism along similar lines. "Kooky cult" were jrod's words, not mine, so apparently it was his post that you didn't read. I was quoting him. I was addressing jrod's claim that Austrainism is scientific, not making a statement about the objective superiority of empiricism or whatever the gently caress you think my argument was QuarkJets fucked around with this message at 09:59 on Oct 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 09:54
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Yo D&D libertarians, whats the appropriate response to the Ebola epidemic? I'm pretty sure the common answer to birth rates outpacing resources, regardless of circumstances, is: "Well they should stop having sex then, shouldn't they?  "
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 13:49
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Yo D&D libertarians, whats the appropriate response to the Ebola epidemic? A scoped .308, a year's supply of Dinty Moore and a big cistern.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 14:13
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:I'm pretty sure the common answer to birth rates outpacing resources, regardless of circumstances, is: "Well they should stop having sex then, shouldn't they? Leave it to libertarians to be the first ones to advocate for not having sex.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 14:16
|
|
|
One thing I've been puzzled by is the "Statist Takeover" screed I've seen some libertarians rail against. What the hell is a Statist? I assume it means someone that believes states are a good thing, but in use it seems more like "anyone that doesn't tell the government to gently caress off"
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 14:24
|
|
|
Triskelli posted:What the hell is a Statist? This might help:  It's a non-word they use to browbeat anyone who disagrees with them. Inventing disparaging terminology for outsiders that only has meaning to them? Totally not a cult.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 14:29
|
|
|
spoon0042 posted:This might help: drat, was hoping there was more to it than that. Thanks for the response.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 14:33
|
|
|
It's like Scientologists and their "suppressive persons."
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 14:37
|
|
|
Triskelli posted:drat, was hoping there was more to it than that. Thanks for the response. It's me. I understand the necessity of impersonal bureaucracies funded by progressive taxation schemes applied to net income and the need to pay above-average wages and benefits to bureaucrats, politicians, and civil servants. I'm the statist.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 14:46
|
|
|
Triskelli posted:drat, was hoping there was more to it than that. Thanks for the response. I looked it up on rationalwiki after I posted that. Theirs isn't much longer so I'll just quote it. (It's a little more detailed, mainly the implication that if you disagree you're Hitler.) quote:A statist is a person who believes the existence of a state, i.e. a government, is necessary for the proper function of most societies. That's pretty much it, really.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 15:10
|
|
|
Okay, so it's exactly the same as "liberal" in actual mainstream politics, something everyone that doesn't watch Fox News is. E: which makes Muir and Day By Day even stupider, since states kind of control everything already, they're not "taking over"
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 15:14
|
|
|
Triskelli posted:Okay, so it's exactly the same as "liberal" in actual mainstream politics, something everyone that doesn't watch Fox News is. A statist is anyone who believes that everyone should get together and stop me from raping and beating those too poor to hire bodyguards.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 15:16
|
|
|
To be fair, it's also people who believe that I should be required to help pay for the people who will stop me from beating and robbing those too rich for me to afford not to rob.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 15:21
|
|
|
Babylon Astronaut posted:To be fair, it's also people who believe that I should be required to help pay for the people who will stop me from beating and robbing those too rich for me to afford not to rob. Honestly sometimes I wonder if the best solution wouldn't be to make the social contract an actual written document you get to sign up for after graduating high-school.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 16:52
|
|
|
Triskelli posted:Honestly sometimes I wonder if the best solution wouldn't be to make the social contract an actual written document you get to sign up for after graduating high-school. https://www.sss.gov/regver/wfregistration.aspx
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 16:54
|
|
|
Rockopolis posted:
Right, that's what I was saying. Are we rolling Praxeology? We're the Ephraimites. We ain't saying shibboleth, not because we can't, but because it's bullshit. An example: The President is definitely not a socialist. He's not a muslim. He's not a traitor stamping on the constitution. I think it's pretty clear he's a Liberal Christian Realist (and some people disagree with me on the Christian Realist part, but loving Reinhold Niebhur and being able to discuss him at length from memory makes that pretty drat clear cut as far as I am concerned). How do they arrive at this President = evil, commie/fascist, all things wrong, business? Shibboleth, they link their ideology to what it means to be American and to be a good person. If you don't participate in that ideology, that is if you're saying sibboleth, you're an un-american criminal. Hence President = monster (Keynan, Muslim, Socialist etc) Look at how someone like Darrel Issa operates. It's not accident that he acts like Joe McCarthy. It's a straight ideological line and nothing has to be twisted spun or massaged, to reach that conclusion either. "I have here in my hand a list of 205 that were made known to the Secretary of State", it's a very tiny step back to a very dark place. Now why is the systematization of Libertarian thought going on relevant to this. Well it's development of a dogma and there is a process to how dogma works. The last step of that process: "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. " Therein lie the stakes. What would be the repercussion of Jrods "infallible (Austrian) truth" as foundation for the US state. What happens if it goes from Shibboleth to foundational concept of the nation-state. They're already arguing for this btw, that's what all the "Muh Constitution" (and to some extent the states rights talk too) talk is. And already they are using their ideas to criminalize particular groups, see "illegal" immigrants. They're even willing to do this to busloads of children fleeing drug violence. Look at the voting suppression they are doing. We can't let vote fraud occur therefore we needs laws X,Y, and Z. It's pseudo-criminalization (they're just implying if you lack a particular photo ID that you are voting illegally) of lacking a photo ID to prevent voting. Where does this go as demographics continue to shift against the GOP? "You don't see Ephraimites around anymore" Hodgepodge posted:This is a basic idea in philosophy, literally Philosophy 101: a logically consistent argument in which conclusions follow from it's premises is called a valid argument, not a true argument. This is also defined concisely by Wikipedia as such: They aren't doing philosophy though. They are doing theology, they have an axiom revealed to them by Reason that they are ultimately concerned with, that they believe they have an absolute dependance upon. And they are right (unfortunately) about one thing, an empirical criticism of that is a non-sequitur. The truth of faith is not the truth of a particular belief. You can show every one of their beliefs to be false, they'll just change them or qualify them. What you need to do is show that we all are not absolutely dependent on human action and freedom. Bar Ran Dun fucked around with this message at 17:05 on Oct 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 16:54
|
|
I'm pretty sure the Ephraimites didn't say shibboleth, they said sibboleth, which was the point. Also why you don't see Ephraimites around anymore.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 17:13
|
|
|
Nnnnot sure I get the joke here. I mean yeah a voluntary draft feels like a contradiction in terms, the insistence on Men and Males for the Nation is weird, and the site looks like it's from 2004, but otherwise I can't tell who/what it's associated with. Guess I'm just dense 
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 17:21
|
|
|
It's a literal social contract you sign to defend the nation after turning 18 if you're a male, "an actual written document you get to sign up for".
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 17:24
|
|
|
Babylon Astronaut posted:To be fair, it's also people who believe that I should be required to help pay for the people who will stop me from beating and robbing those too rich for me to afford not to rob. The real injustice is forcing me to pay for the prosecution of those who are doing the world a service by ridding our fair streets of worthless bums and supplying our critical organ markets at the same time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 17:26
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:It's a literal social contract you sign to defend the nation after turning 18 if you're a male, "an actual written document you get to sign up for". ...probably deserved that, I was leading into the old "put all people that disagree with all together somewhere and see how well their ideas work" hate speech. Might be worth it to see if it goes full mad max or actual little princedoms.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 17:40
|
|
|
Just talked to a new hire at work, he segued into libertarianism talk after revealing some major misconceptions about history, and then told me after I said that I didn't believe people would treat each other justly outside of formal institutions that forced them to that he was sure "if someone was going around lynching minorities, people would stop it even without a state". Not really sure what I could possibly say to that. Like I don't understand how that's even a position someone can hold. He seemed sincere about it too. I'm just stunned to meet someone so naive, especially since he's Iranian and would probably get lynched pretty quickly if everybody started ingrouping again. Also tried to insist that the reason the US helped in Libya was because they didn't have a central bank, that Bashar Al-Assad probably wasn't that bad a guy if he opposed ISIS, and (at another point in the convo) that Stalin had killed more people than the Holocaust. Fun times.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 18:51
|
|
|
Political Whores posted:Just talked to a new hire at work, he segued into libertarianism talk after revealing some major misconceptions about history, and then told me after I said that I didn't believe people would treat each other justly outside of formal institutions that forced them to that he was sure "if someone was going around lynching minorities, people would stop it even without a state". Not really sure what I could possibly say to that. Like I don't understand how that's even a position someone can hold. He seemed sincere about it too. I'm just stunned to meet someone so naive, especially since he's Iranian and would probably get lynched pretty quickly if everybody started ingrouping again. Bwhuuhhhh? Second paragraph, I just don't understand. Stalin did kill more individuals than died in the Holocaust.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 18:58
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Bwhuuhhhh? Second paragraph, I just don't understand. He said that Stalin had 10 million people executed during the great purge, but thought that Hitler had killed "like a million" Jews. This was evidence of the dangers of statism.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 19:07
|
|
|
Political Whores posted:He said that Stalin had 10 million people executed during the great purge, but thought that Hitler had killed "like a million" Jews. Bwuhhhaaa? This is evidence of the danger of putting ideologues who care about results over process into power. If anything, I'd describe the Soviet Union as a stateless society. Pure, free-market purestrain communism
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 19:10
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:If anything, I'd describe the Soviet Union as a stateless society. Pure, free-market purestrain communism This is as ridiculous as anything jrod has said in this thread.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 19:23
|
|
|
Political Whores posted:He said that Stalin had 10 million people executed during the great purge, but thought that Hitler had killed "like a million" Jews. Estimates vary on the number of Stalin's victims, with 3 million direct victims being the minimum (800k executions, 1.7m Gulag victims, 400k deaths during forced resettlement). If you want to start adding deaths that are a bit harder to attribute to Stalin personally but at the very least happened with his concent (NKVD mass executions such as the Katyn Massacre), 10 million is still a bit too high, but if you add deaths from famines like Holodomor where there is disagreement if it was an intentional act of genocide, or unintentional tragedy as part of collectivization, but there are respected historians that argue it was an intentional act of genocide, and with those deaths, 10 million becomes a fairly reasonable estimate. Of course this guy said "10 million executed during the great purge", and that is completely false, I'd be shocked if the total number of executions even broke 5 million. Further, I'd say both men were evidence of the dangers of totalitarianism rather than the dangers of states in general, but for anyone curious, you can argue using fairly mainstream/not crazy sources that Stalin could be responsible for more dead people than the Holocaust.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 20:49
|
|
|
DrProsek posted:Estimates vary on the number of Stalin's victims, with 3 million direct victims being the minimum (800k executions, 1.7m Gulag victims, 400k deaths during forced resettlement). Further, I'm always baffled when Libertarians use Stalin as a defense against the holocaust in the first place, as if he's revered in any way.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 21:15
|
|
|
DrProsek posted:Estimates vary on the number of Stalin's victims, with 3 million direct victims being the minimum (800k executions, 1.7m Gulag victims, 400k deaths during forced resettlement). Is Generalplan Ost in the Holocaust column or no? Because that counts for ~10-14 million more dead for the Nazis in the USSR alone, and another few million in the Balkans and Central Europe. A couple of authors/sources count it as something different from the Holocaust is why I'm asking.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 21:31
|
|
|
Whoa hey hey guys, don't you think you're strawmanning Libertarianism a bit here? Libertarians aren't so crazy that just because Soviet Russia did bad things that means a state can do nothing but evil. In fact, Libertarians are broad-minded enough to recognize and applaud states that use their power for good. For example, Reason magazine  Yeah sure, apartheid wasn't perfect like stateless society would be, but it did keep blacks out of my neighborhood and out of the poll booth where they'd have voted for socialism.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 21:39
|
|
|
There is also a qualitative difference between the Holocaust versus equivalent acts with Communist and capitalist motives. Communist states typically commit atrocities in order to secure compliance with economic and political ends, capitalist actors (often outside of a state framework but with the backing of a state) for the sake of profit. Fascists kill for two reasons: explicit reverence for violence, and identity based hatred. This is broadly the difference between "I will kill you unless X, for purpose Y" and "I am going to kill you because you are Z, and because I feel like it." There is overlap, such as the Chinese Cultural Revolution degrading people for possessing expertise, but we tend to parse that as pure crazy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 21:49
|
|
|
Political Whores posted:he was sure "if someone was going around lynching minorities, people would stop it even without a state". Not really sure what I could possibly say to that. I mean, I guess you could tell him that it's directly contradicted by well-established historical fact and recommend some books about the second KKK and the historical practice and culture of lynching. I get the impression that ignorance of history is one of the columns supporting your average libertarian's adherence to the ideology (among others, naturally). Schenck v. U.S. fucked around with this message at 22:08 on Oct 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 22:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 15:31 |
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Jrod claimed that Austrian economics is scientific, and I pointed out that a philosophy which claims that it cannot be tested by observation is the opposite of scientific. So did you not read jrod's post, or did you not read mine? This too is a strawman. Libertarians aren't anti-science at all. It's hardly the fault of libertarians that there's a worldwide Marxist conspiracy to fabricate ostensibly empirical evidence. Rejecting the lies of democrats is not the same as rejecting science. In fact they are the world's greatest champions of free scientific enquiry which must be unchained from the suppressive tactics of liberals such as when they say "holy poo poo, are you really advocating Nazi racial science right now?" Murray Rothbard posted:Until literally mid-October 1994, it was shameful and taboo for anyone to talk publicly or write about, home truths which everyone, and I mean everyone, knew in their hearts and in private: that is, almost self-evident truths about race, intelligence, and heritability. What used to be widespread shared public knowledge about race and ethnicity among writers, publicists, and scholars, was suddenly driven out of the public square by Communist anthropologist Franz Boas and his associates in the 1930s, and it has been taboo ever since. Essentially, I mean the almost self-evident fact that individuals, ethnic groups, and races differ among themselves in intelligence and in many other traits, and that intelligence, as well as less controversial traits of temperament, are in large part hereditary...The racial thought police were able to suppress journalism, and to eliminate all Racially Incorrect traces not only of media sentiment, but even of humor, and the rich American heritage of ethnic humor has almost been stamped out of existence. Nazi racialist science: a valuable defense of private property against those who would aggress against by doubting the superiority of my Aryan heritage. Also, note how the Libertarian definition of aggression differs from that of the egalitarian-socialist Establishment. In addition to "walking across my yard", a proper Libertarian definition of aggression also includes Academic Aggression such as for example, when a university president abuses his right of free choice and aggresses against me by saying "What no, you can't teach The Protocols of the Elders of Zion as fact at this school you loving Nazi!" VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 22:36 on Oct 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 22:31
|
|