|
Also note how, much like Hans Herman-Hoppe, Rothbard is quite open about how his ideal libertarian society will leave large groups of the already poor much worse off.
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 22:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 00:51 |
|
|
Helsing posted:Also note how, much like Hans Herman-Hoppe, Rothbard is quite open about how his ideal libertarian society will leave large groups of the already poor much worse off. Hilariously, in one of the sections I didn't include, Rothbard also takes the other side of this issue. Another part of that exact same essay because hey why-the-gently caress-not, it's not like my libertarian audience can remember two things at once anyway posted:Of the two authors of The Bell Curve, Charles Murray is the best-known in conservative circles as a neoconservative/left-libertarian researcher whose elaborate statistics confirmed what everyone knew anyway: that the welfare state injures, rather than benefits, its alleged beneficiaries, and only aggravates the problem. So what else is new, Charlie? The welfare state is racist because it always exacerbates poverty among the people it claims to help, oh and also it's unjust because it ameliorates poverty which is always deserved on account of racial inferiority.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 22:48
|
|
|
Malleum posted: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. Oh right, that's the other part I forgot to mention in my post; saying Stalin killed more than the Holocaust only works if you are as generous as possible to Stalin's K/D ratio, and as conservative as possible for Hitler. If we just go by "people killed in the camps" as the one and only thing that counts as "Holocaust", they're still fairly close but you could probably eek out Stalin winning Genocider of the Decade, but the second you adding in numbers like Soviet civilian deaths, Hitler's numbers start ballooning to the point that Stalin has no way to catch up unless you start blaming every single death in the USSR on him. So basically, Political Whores' friend is right only in a really strict definition of "Stalin's murders" and "Holocaust"(I assume since he specified "Holocaust" he was trying to only talk about the camp deaths, but it's very possible I'm wrong and he seriously thought Hitler killed way fewer overall), even then the numbers are still fairly close, and even if you ignore that the difference isn't that huge, this is a rather pointless change to anyone but a hardcore Stalinist. Okay fine you win, Stalin is the best Genocider ever. Ergo states are bad, because they would have been great if Hitler was the best Genocider? burnishedfume fucked around with this message at 23:36 on Oct 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 23:32
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Hilariously, in one of the sections I didn't include, Rothbard also takes the other side of this issue. I actually remember in jrod's most recent thread some other ancap came in from BFC to argue this. "Government steals from the poor and throws them back scraps. What, you say my ideology will instead let corporations and gangs and poo poo steal even more while giving them back even less? Well those things can't exist without the state, statist  "
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 23:34
|
|
|
DrProsek posted:Oh right, that's the other part I forgot to mention in my post; saying Stalin killed more than the Holocaust only works if you are as generous as possible to Stalin's K/D ratio, and as conservative as possible for Hitler. If we just go by "people killed in the camps" as the one and only thing that counts as "Holocaust", they're still fairly close but you could probably eek out Stalin winning Genocider of the Decade, but the second you adding in numbers like Soviet civilian deaths, Hitler's numbers start ballooning to the point that Stalin has no way to catch up unless you start blaming every single death in the USSR on him. Pfft. Only if you blame all the Soviet civilian and military deaths resulting from the German invasion in World War 2 on Hitler  Might I remind you that Stalin's USSR was Communist, and therefore the blame for any deaths resulting from Germany shouldering the burden of defending Europe against the Red Menace can only be borne by Stalin for refusing to peacefully abandon Communism?
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 23:42
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Pfft. Only if you blame all the Soviet civilian and military deaths resulting from the German invasion in World War 2 on Hitler Look friend, I covered this earlier; 1. Humans Act. 2. If two totalitarian states engage in a voluntary transaction, it must mean that they both expect to leave a third state worse off to benefit themselves (either directly or indirectly). 3. Ergo, all society must be build around eliminating inter-national free transactions, and move to all transactions being within one global state. As as my last proof showed, that state must be a proletariat dictatorship. Ergo, Stalin was right  .
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 02:24
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Pfft. Only if you blame all the Soviet civilian and military deaths resulting from the German invasion in World War 2 on Hitler The whole debate came up because I said that I'd rather be a communist than a libertarian, and that my beliefs were much closer to the former than the latter, which started the whole thing off. So that's probably close to what he believes. I mean all this started at all because he asked because of some tangent about safe, reliable gold
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 03:08
|
|
|
It's pretty cool when you say you have socialist or communist views and then people think you mean Stalin.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 05:29
|
|
|
DrProsek posted:Look friend, I covered this earlier; This conclusion seems like bullshit, but you started with the undeniable axiom that humans act so I guess I have to accept that you're right because to do otherwise would mean foolishly denying that I act.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 07:18
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:This conclusion seems like bullshit, but you started with the undeniable axiom that humans act so I guess I have to accept that you're right because to do otherwise would mean foolishly denying that I act. 1. Humans Act 2. Therefore, Give me all your loving money. 3. Or, I'll cut you. Seems like job for DRO Valhalla.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 07:22
|
|
|
1. Humans Act 2. Real nice family you got there, it'd be a shame if something were to happen to them on account of you rejecting (3) 3. Therefore, I am right.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 07:43
|
|
|
1. Roses are red 2. Violets are Blue 3. Obama is bringing ebola patients here in order to start an epidemic and 9/11 was caused by the same lizard people who put fluoride in our tap water Ron Paul 2016 End the Fed
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 08:21
|
|
|
1. The sun is the source of all life giving energy. 2.Plant life turns that energy into nutrients that all life can use. 3.All animal life is a series of looters and moochers of plant life, with other looters and moochers on top of the first set. 4.Humans are at the top of this chain of exploitation. 5.Therefore, we are morally compelled to destroy all humans. QED
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 08:49
|
|
|
1) Humans act. 2) Therefore, all acts of aggression are committed by humans. 3) Therefore, all humans are guilty of agression. I would have thought libertarians would have loved Stalin. He won. The Russian Civil wars were probably the freest of free markets; there was no state, the Tsar was kaput, no Soviet Union, just a bunch of conveniently color-coded free assocations. The Soviet Union only came about because of a bunch of rational associations, not as state coercion. My Imaginary GF posted: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. What kind of revenue streams are logically consistent in Libertarian terms, and is it possible for it to also be progressive? An asset tax as a registration fee/subscription? BrandorKP 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.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 12:58
|
|
|
All against All 2016
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 14:30
|
|
|
The Russian Civil War: A model for dispute resolution among competing DROs. The world is suddenly much clearer.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 17:14
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Nazi racialist science: a valuable defense of private property against those who would aggress against by doubting the superiority of my Aryan heritage. Tangent: Rothbard was rumored among early libertarian circles to be a Holocaust denier who refused to believe that gas chambers were used for, well, gassing. He flirted with deniers much of his life and maintained good relations with Harry Elmer Barnes and some other small fry writers who contributed to early Holocaust denial scholarship.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 17:20
|
|
|
States have successfully outcompeted anarchy everywhere, therefore by the law of Human Action, States must be in everyone's rational self-interest.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 17:23
|
|
|
Rockopolis posted:If, as you say, it's not about truth, but to pick sides (and targets), what good is somehow showing we're not absolutely dependent on human action and freedom. I just don't have a problem with looking at it in both ways. On one hand it doesn't matter matter if they think it's true or not, the Libertarian talk is a political tool (a shibboleth) they are using to get what they want by othering groups and individuals (internally in primaries and externally in general elections). This is a very dangerous thing. I also think they target individuals with problems by proselytizing widely, in the same way other extremist and fundamentalist groups do. They also target wealthy individuals with influence (and there was quite a bit on that in the NYTs recently, on Koch type Libertarians trying to bring in the silicon valley crowd) They also fund/build real world organizations intended to create individuals, who by having come through those organization and structures have beliefs that are in line with their goals. Talking about all that isn't talking about truths. On the other hand it's a religion with an ultimate concern of: free human action. And I think some of the important ones (best example the Kochs) are true believers too! From that foundation they accuse the rest of us as threats to freedom, or threats to the American Dream, or threats to the Constitution. Again I think we can look at the example of the language they throw at the President, to see how nasty that accusation can get. I also think they can point this anywhere (because we all coerce others by existing). The response to accusation is apology (which is not proselytizing!) To go after free human action as a false religious idol. Talking about this is talking about truths. Rockopolis posted:Aren't they just going ignore it, or further entrench themselves? Or double down on opposing you They'll take it as a personal attack. And this already is happening too. All sorts of people (and I can go into specific examples if you want) are going after the foundational idea of Libertarianism now. This is taken personally because it's attack on what they see their identity (and in the example below, their business) as being absolutely dependent on. It will be responded in personal terms as an accusation directed at them personally. Like this: http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303978304579475860515021286 That is also apology and it's one pointed at all of us.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 19:25
|
|
|
Rockopolis posted:I would have thought libertarians would have loved Stalin. He won. Yeah but the winners turned out to be a bunch of statists so it shouldn't count for some reason
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 19:35
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Yeah but the winners turned out to be a bunch of statists so it shouldn't count for some reason The only moral botched abortion of an economic system is my... you get the idea.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 00:50
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Yeah but the winners turned out to be a bunch of statists so it shouldn't count for some reason  Stupid statists, every single time we try to set up our own private utopia you guys come muscling in and ruin it.Everyone posted:One of the foundational problems with a Libertarian/AnCap society is that anyone who chooses to collectivize will immediately have an advantage over everyone else. No, see, because the principles are so universal that everyone will realize it's in their own self-interest to comply.Everyone posted:But you just said statists are always winning. That's only because of the state.Everyone posted:Right. Exactly, I'm right.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 15:35
|
|
ME
|
Remember that libertarians and ancaps have nothing against "voluntary" hierarchies. And there's no state or central authority, so presumably every hierarchy gets to determine what "voluntary" means on its own. This is why the more honest libertarians like Hoppe fully recognize that liberotpia will basically be a return to feudalism. So 'collectivism' will still exist in a sense, it will just be a balkanized and ultra-conservative kind of collectivism where the genetically superior types will naturally assume leadership and then "physically remove" anyone with opposing political or ethical views. (Just to be clear to anyone new to the thread this is not an exaggeration, this is literally what Hoppe expects and hopes will happen). So no, collectivists in Libertopia won't have any special advantage because the actual purpose of libertarianism is not to eliminate groups, it's just to eliminate any federal authority that might limit the ability of groups to organize themselves in ultra-hierarchical ways.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 20:08
|
|
|
Rather than continue to go over the merits of praxeology and the Austrian method of deducing economic laws, based as it is on a logical deductive method from the Action axiom, I would prefer to ask rather about what your view is on the state on modern "mainstream" economics as a discipline. Frankly, I think that the subject of epistemology and the validity of praxeology and the limits of empiricism is far to complex a subject to fully hash out in the limited format of an internet message board. What would you say about the state of the economics profession by and large in 2014? Do you all subscribe to variations on Keynesian interventionist economics? Are you therefore in favor of central banks setting interest rates? Must modern nation States "fight" recessions with inflation and credit expansion? Regardless of your opinion on the Austrian alternative, it would seem clear to me that the last half century of our economic history has been full of economic bubbles and subsequent recessions, a depreciating value of the dollar, price inflation leading to steadily eroding living standards and, indeed, a growing class of parasitic crony capitalists who gain wealth through expropriation and State privilege. In contrast to other sciences like medicine, physics and chemistry it would seem that instead of progressively moving humanity towards greater knowledge and understanding of the world around us, economics has led us astray. The Ivy league economists who have been advising the political elites for several generations have seemed to promote policies that have caused economic instability, a worsening standard of living for the middle class and massive dislocations and recessions like the one we are still living through. Indeed there could scarcely be anything like a "consensus" even among the mainstream economics profession, whose adherents seem to be flailing in the wind without rhyme or reason, taking whatever position permit their position of privilege as official State-sanctioned opinion molder to continue unabated. Economics is unique among the sciences since every participant in the study of economics has a great incentive to pervert the data to their own advantage. Economics, from the very outset, is a discipline that is rife for conflicts of interest. All of us have our own economic interests and some of us stand to gain a great deal from having a scientific gloss to justify some extortion racket or another. You think Goldman Saches don't contribute some of their lobbying money towards think tanks and public advocacy organizations filled with "economists" who promote the view that it is sound economic policy to subsidize the big banks and bail them out in times of recession? A few years back a story was run on The Huffington Post entitled "Priceless: How the Federal Reserve Bought the Economics Profession". http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/07/priceless-how-the-federal_n_278805.html Clearly there are some very unscientific conflicts of interest and, as the story above goes, so many economists are afraid to properly critique and scrutinize the central bank for its actions. The question is very apropos, just how independent and scientific is the field of economics anyway? It is not as if the physicist has a perverse incentive to argue that the rate of gravity or the speed of a comet is something other than what it empirically is. The same is not true of the field of economics. It should be noted that when Keynesian economics swept Academia and became a new phenomenon in the mid 1930s, they didn't ever refute the older classical economists nor the Austrian economic viewpoints. The new paradigm swept the profession and the older knowledge was merely forgotten about. Like I said above, Keynesian economics had the distinct advantage of telling State officials what they already wanted to hear, that they needed to print money and intervene into the economy. The Austrians were telling the powerful, the ruling class and bankers, precisely the opposite of what they wanted to hear. Are you so naive that you think that this perverse economic incentive had NOTHING to do with why Keynesian economics was embraced by the establishment while classical economics and the Austrian school were rejected? Do you really believe that there were really a bunch of careful, methodical economic scientists in labcoats studying empirical economic data and tirelessly trying to determine the best explanation for complex human behavior, adhering to the scientific method without prejudice and conflict of interest? How could they have even rejected the Austrian School economics at the time when hardly a single economists at the time even understood those arguments? You might ask "how do you know that?" I know that because Mises' pioneering work on the business cycle, The Theory of Money and Credit was not available in an English translation until the late 1930s and so unfortunately the arguments offered as to the cause of the Great Depression and the economic problems of the 1930s never got a fair hearing in the United States until well after Keynesian economics swept the profession. This is such a tragedy since if Mises' arguments could have been comprehended earlier by Western audiences, then we could have averted both the Great Depression (it could have been a short, sharp recession that lasted a year or two like the forgotten Depression of 1920-21) AND the unfortunate detour of economics down the path of intervention and inflation. Because, lets be honest, nearly ALL of the continued justification for interventionist economics stems from a certain account of the history of The Great Depression. We are told that the market failed due to the stock market crash of 1929. We are told that the Gold Standard caused the crisis and prevented recovery. We are told that the boom and bust cycle is just an inherent feature of capitalism and the market economy and they use the 1930s as "proof" of that supposed fact. Exactly how scientific and empirical is it to simply assume that the business cycle is merely an inherent and inescapable fact of the market economy? Exactly how empirical and scientific is an explanation like "animal spirits" to describe how irrational human behavior somehow causes economic instability? The truth is that Keynesian economic theory has never even bothered to search for an actual explanation for the boom and bust cycle. Which seems odd, since the entire rationale for both central banking price fixing of interest rates and the court historian justification in the form of Keynesian economic theory is justified through the supposed need to regulate the business cycle and fight economic instability. They are trying to fight and contain an economic phenomenon they don't understand and haven't even made an effort to understand. This ignorance of the business cycle has caused the Federal Reserve to utterly fail in its mandate to supposedly lessen the economic instability we experienced before. Contrary to popular mythology, we have NOT experienced fewer recessions or more economic stability in the one hundred years since the Fed was established compared to the one hundred years prior. Generation after generation, Fed chairmen have claimed that they had figured out how to manage the economic and set interest rates correctly. Quote after quote can be produced of them saying that they "cured" the problem of the business cycle and we shouldn't have to worry about such pesky recessions and depressions in the future. And, inevitably, every time such a claim was made the economic bubble they were helping to create burst and we suffered a major recession. During the 1970s Keynesian economic theory was supposed to have been empirically invalidated through the two facts of the breakdown of the Bretton Woods system and the stagflation that was not supposed to be possible according to Keynesian theory. Yet in recent years, like a zombie who just won't die, Keynesian theory has been resurrected as a justification for economic intervention by the State once more. It is a sad fact that the Republicans under Ronald Reagan, instead of supporting sound money and criticizing price fixing of interest rates, they instead endorsed a "Keynesianism of the Right", a type of intervention that favored supply instead of demand. While you may dispute my assertion that the Austrians were unique in their ability to criticize, in real time, the policies of the Fed that were causing first the unsustainable Tech bubble of the 1990s and then the unsustainable housing bubble of the 2000s, the fact remains that the vast majority of those that could be considered inside the mainstream of the economics profession were blindsided by the crash of 2008 and failed to comprehend the causation factors that permitted it to occur. It doesn't look like mainstream economics profession has such a great record in recent decades. Austrian economics is a neglected school of thought that has not had much influence in recent years. There is no possible economic incentive one could have to favor Austrianism over Keynesianism, while on the flip side, it can be very personally lucrative to tell the political elite what they want to hear and provide legitimacy to State power. I would like you to explain the recent failings of Keynesian economic theory and all other branches of interventionist economics and explain why that wouldn't compel a rational mind to consider the alternatives of a neglected school of thought like the Austrian school, especially given the proven predictive ability that has been demonstrated time and again? jrodefeld fucked around with this message at 10:39 on Nov 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 10:32
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Rather than continue to go over the merits of praxeology and the Austrian method of deducing economic laws, based as it is on a logical deductive method from the Action axiom, I would prefer to ask rather about what your view is on the state on modern "mainstream" economics as a discipline. Frankly, I think that the subject of epistemology and the validity of praxeology and the limits of empiricism is far to complex a subject to fully hash out in the limited format of an internet message board. Teach us about the negroids.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 11:03
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:loving Snip
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 11:04
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:This is such a tragedy since if Mises' arguments could have been comprehended earlier by Western audiences, then we could have averted both the Great Depression (it could have been a short, sharp recession that lasted a year or two like the forgotten Depression of 1920-21) AND the unfortunate detour of economics down the path of intervention and inflation. Why? What would they have done differently?
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 12:55
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:
Okay. There's far to much bullshit in this gish-gallop screed to pick it apart piece by piece but Jesus Christ you do not get to be this factually wrong. John Maynard Keynes published "The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money", where he laid out his comprehensive economic theories in 1936. Von Mises' "The Theory of Money and Credit" was first published in German in 1912, and was translated into English and published in 193-loving-4! In short, von Mises' theories had a two-year head-start on those presented by Keynes. While it is true that Keynes had presented other works on economics previously, those were confined to quite specific subjects within economic theory, or were policy-proposals to ( and far from all of them adopted by ) the government of Great Britain, and no comprehensive economic theory until, again, well after von Mises had been both translated to and distributed in English.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 13:17
|
|
|
If only Western audiences had sent an expedition to darkest Austria, to recover the wisdom of Mises and translate it from the mysterious north-man language it was written in.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 13:23
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Rather than continue to go over the merits of praxeology and the Austrian method of deducing economic laws, based as it is on a logical deductive method from the Action axiom, I would prefer to ask rather about what your view is on the state on modern "mainstream" economics as a discipline. So you have absolutely no response to the myriad of attacks on the central pillar of your discipline, and are instead fleeing to some other topic. Do you always debate like this?
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 13:40
|
|
|
Nolanar posted:So you have absolutely no response to the myriad of attacks on the central pillar of your discipline, and are instead fleeing to some other topic. No, sometimes he leaves the forum entirely, only to come back and start an entire new thread several months later.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 13:59
|
|
Waaaah the Christians are out to get me
|
jrodefeld posted:It doesn't look like mainstream economics profession has such a great record in recent decades. Austrian economics is a neglected school of thought that has not had much influence in recent years. There is no possible economic incentive one could have to favor Austrianism over Keynesianism, while on the flip side, it can be very personally lucrative to tell the political elite what they want to hear and provide legitimacy to State power. You are aware that the argument against X isn't an argument for Y, or A, or B? So just because Keynesian economics has failed doesn't mean that Austrian economics is the correct answer. The other problem is that all you've provided us with are just assertions. You're not providing us with the evidence. You're just saying "You know, the Austrians are pretty great. Keynesians kind of suck. Why aren't you considering the Austrians?"
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 14:55
|
|
|
A brief glance at the Keynesianism page on wikipedia tells me that he had plenty of detailed arguments about what causes boom/bust cycles and how to fix them. The fundamental problem with Keynesianism is politics. Not just at the state level; you provided a great example of a corporation buying whole institutions worth of "experts." Nothing about Austrian economics protects it from manipulation by the powerful people who sponsor it. Except that they would be a large enough disaster if implemented to damage the interests of the rich in practice, I suppose. Meanwhile, physicists are having trouble nailing down the nature of timespace, so maybe we should look to the Timecube for answers that haven't been EDUCATED STUPID.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 15:24
|
|
|
Nolanar posted:So you have absolutely no response to the myriad of attacks on the central pillar of your discipline, and are instead fleeing to some other topic. It's a very effective, if incredibly intellectually dishonest, debating topic. He ignores the previous topic that he has very clearly lost on and moves on to another "topic" which is actually just a shotgun of points A-L. Now if someone actually does respond to points A, B, C, F, G, and K he'll immediately respond with "Ah yes, but what about D, E, and H-L?  ". And any attempts to steer the discussion back to the previous subject is met with a dismissive, "I've moved on and won't discuss that anymore. "
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 15:35
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Rather than continue to go over the merits of praxeology and the Austrian method of deducing economic laws, based as it is on a logical deductive method from the Action axiom, I would prefer to ask rather about what your view is on the state on modern "mainstream" economics as a discipline. Frankly, I think that the subject of epistemology and the validity of praxeology and the limits of empiricism is far to complex a subject to fully hash out in the limited format of an internet message board. Actually, I want to keep talking about the merits of praxeology. I will not drop the subject with you until you admit you are wrong. Because every time you try to change the subject, I will keep bringing up that post about how you don't use the scientific method to disprove basic truths about human interactions. In fact, this is an incredibly lovely thing to do. Instead of admitting that your arguments are weak or that your views are untenable, you instead say "You know what, it's just too complex for you guys to understand." Where are we wrong? What's the matter? Please, enlighten us. Or admit that you are wrong and praxeology is not a tenable position to hold. Because honestly, what you just said is "I cannot effectively argue what I was trying to argue, but I'm not willing to say I was wrong." And frankly, there is no point in engaging in an argument with someone who refuses to admit that they put out a bad argument. So please. Enlighten us on praxeology. Don't change the subject. Because it's a real lovely thing to do.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 16:02
|
|
|
Cemetry Gator posted:Actually, I want to keep talking about the merits of praxeology. I will not drop the subject with you until you admit you are wrong. Because every time you try to change the subject, I will keep bringing up that post about how you don't use the scientific method to disprove basic truths about human interactions. On that note does praxeology use empirical or harry potter physics?
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 16:51
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Exactly how scientific and empirical is it to simply assume that the business cycle is merely an inherent and inescapable fact of the market economy? Good point, full communism 2015  .
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 17:19
|
|
|
After kinda half-heartedly trying to defend my beliefs for a couple posts I've decided the topic is Just Too Complicated For Forums, but rest assured I was right all along and let's move on *shits and pisses self, glides away*
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 18:15
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Regardless of your opinion on the Austrian alternative, it would seem clear to me that the last half century of our economic history has been full of economic bubbles and subsequent recessions, a depreciating value of the dollar, price inflation leading to steadily eroding living standards and, indeed, a growing class of parasitic crony capitalists who gain wealth through expropriation and State privilege. loving crony capitalists and their immoral shady tactics to gain wealth at the expense of others! *gives them free reign to do whatever* Phew! Almost had to pay for a food stamp there!
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 18:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 00:51 |
|
|
So what happened to the Mutato? He promised he was going to answer my question on how the Voluntary Transaction model doesn't account for the way labor works in real life and hasn't come back for like a month. Did he just Jrod out of the forums, or can we be optimistic and hope we've made him question the core of his terrible beliefs.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 20:22
|
|