|
jrodefeld, if you're serious about wanting to have a spoken debate then I would be very interested in having a debate on the ethics of the NAP and a hypothetical Libertarian stateless society. I understand you can't do it immediately and I'm willing to wait to hash out a good time to do it. You wouldn't even have to get a webcam, I don't have on either and I'd be willing to place the audio over images when it's posted for posterity. I'll even let you choose the format, either segmented or free form and moderated or unmoderated, and I'll even let you choose the moderator of you want one. I'm willing to give you every conceivable advantage in this debate. Just name a date and time and we'll make this happen.
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 14:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 01:39 |
|
|
Trent posted:All pollution is an act of aggression? That means that virtually every person and business in existence is an aggressor, which means we can use retaliatory force whenever.... aaah you had me going there. Some pollution is something we accept because we don't want to die at 25, living a subsistence existence. We need industry to enjoy any sort of quality of life. If we all accept some level of pollution, then it is not aggression since it is voluntary. However, if pollution is excessive then you can prove damages, either to your health or to your property. Maybe the property value goes down, or your plants die early. Maybe you get sick easier or whatever. Then you should be able to compel the aggressor to pay damages. Factories should have to bear the cost of their own pollution. If they have to pay, then they have an incentive to reduced their pollution as low as possible. Simply saying "pollution is an act of aggression" is inaccurate. There is no action itself that is always, by definition, aggression. An action becomes aggression only if the act of invasion is unwanted. Murder is aggression. But a doctor who helps a terminally ill patient to die to avoid suffering is not committing aggression. Rape is aggression because it is unwanted. And so forth. We all know that some emissions, some pollution is necessary for civilization. We know that the alternatives to any emissions are far worse. However, when pollution is excessive and unwanted, and produces tangible harm, then it becomes aggression and the victim is within his or her rights to demand compensation for damages. Is this clear?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 14:50
|
|
|
Since An-Cap isn't true anarchism and anarchy is inherently tied to Marxism and Kropotkinism, it would be a silly question to ask what an Ancap would do in an anarchic society because they wouldn't be part of one. However, in an anarchic society there would not be private property (differentiated between personal property, ie the items one uses on a day to day basis), and so generally a collective of people running a factory that polluted the local area would not happen as they would be polluting their own homes and land so would vote not to run the factory in that manner. The current economic model where profit motive trumps all other concerns and derived from the money lust of the wealthy that do not live in the polluted community would be untenable.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 14:54
|
|
|
Jrod, when you use the terms legal and illegal, who do you imagine as enforcing those things and by what methods?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 14:56
|
|
|
Pththya-lyi posted:Jrod, I'm not going to touch your long posts, but I'd like you to answer a question for me: should people be allowed to sell themselves into slavery? After all, I own my person, and I have the right to sell anything that I own. As long my master-to-be isn't using force or fraud to get me to transfer all my personal rights to him, I don't see how someone who believes in the primacy of property rights can object to such a transaction. A few have argued that voluntary slavery is indeed consistent with self ownership and libertarian theory. I disagree. Murray Rothbard explains why voluntary slavery cannot exist: The distinction between a man's alienable labor service and his inalienable will may be further explained: a man can alienate his labor service, but he cannot sell the capitalized future value of that service. In short, he cannot, in nature, sell himself into slavery and have this sale enforced — for this would mean that his future will over his own person was being surrendered in advance. In short, a man can naturally expend his labor currently for someone else's benefit, but he cannot transfer himself, even if he wished, into another man's permanent capital good. For he cannot rid himself of his own will, which may change in future years and repudiate the current arrangement. The concept of "voluntary slavery" is indeed a contradictory one, for so long as a laborer remains totally subservient to his master's will voluntarily, he is not yet a slave since his submission is voluntary; whereas, if he later changed his mind and the master enforced his slavery by violence, the slavery would not then be voluntary. But more of coercion later on.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 14:58
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:What coherent concept of property acquisition is there other than original appropriation and homesteading? A social contract which determines who may use a collectively owned or un-ownable resource, of course. Ultimately, ownership is a legal fiction. This is often explicit; how can someone "own" the expression of an idea, a thing which has no physical existence, after all? And yet the idea is fully present in, for example, precontact Pacific Northwest cultures, where ownership of a particular mask design or song was fundamental to one's social identity. I actually know someone whose father had to win the right to give him his first name (he is a goon incidentally). Property rights in the present sense require this as well; they are simply a variant. Why precisely should original ownership trump all other claims? I will admit that it seems intuitive to give prior ownership some weight, but that presupposes that there is a valid and recognized property claim in the first place. Hodgepodge fucked around with this message at 15:13 on Nov 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 15:09
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:If we all accept some level of pollution, then it is not aggression since it is voluntary. However, if pollution is excessive then you can prove damages, either to your health or to your property. Maybe the property value goes down, or your plants die early. Maybe you get sick easier or whatever. Then you should be able to compel the aggressor to pay damages. gently caress's sake, did you even actually read any of the posts in this thread? This idea straddles the line between practically impossible and impossibly impractical. What if a polluter dies or goes out of business before damages occur? How does someone not versed in science link, for example, a lower crop yield to one specific polluter? How much would it cost to conduct an investigation to determine damages and the source of these damages? What if whatever company does the investigation gets paid off by the polluter to under-estimate or misdirect? This can't possibly work, and your copious use of maybes and shoulds shows it perfectly well. jrodefeld posted:The short answer is that I don't know what would happen or how free people organize to best protect against such environmental harm. The question that should be asked is "what would YOU do?" Suppose you had to live in an anarchist society and you couldn't look to the State to solve these problems for you. What would you do? That's an easy question. I'd create a state and empower it with the moral and legal power to commit aggression against businessmen to ensure that they don't poison the land, in a preventive manner.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 15:12
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:But Caros' hypothetical isn't extreme or unlikely at all. The world where a small oligarchy controls the majority of the land and resources and starved the moat vulnerable is called The Real World, and in America we dealt with the worst of this problem with medicare and food stamps, and it's only political intransigence from feudalism-minded luddites who hold us back from finishing the job. I get it. You want to use violence against me for following my conscience and wanting no part of your central planning and redistribution schemes. The difference between you and me is that I DON'T want to commit violence against you. I don't want you thrown in a cage for acting in any peaceful way you might wish. You can voluntarily organize with other lefties and experiment with any social organization you please. What you cannot do is to violently expropriate me and force those who disagree with you to be a part of your social plan through force. That is grossly immoral and says a lot about your character that you promote such violence. An idea is not worth much if you cannot implement it without forcing it onto other people through the barrel of a gun. If you accept voluntarism, then you would prefer to use persuasion to convince other people to adopt your values. I am fighting for society to put the guns down and work out our problems through cooperation using violence only in self defense. You are advocating for violence against those who disagree with you. This does in fact make me a better person than you. I'm not saying that in a snarky way, but I am deadly serious. I don't care what rationalizations who have told yourself to justify advocating violence against your fellow man. It is a barbaric and unethical way to interact with others.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 15:12
|
|
|
Heavy neutrino posted:gently caress's sake, did you even actually read any of the posts in this thread? This idea straddles the line between practically impossible and impossibly impractical. What if a polluter dies or goes out of business before damages occur? How does someone not versed in science link, for example, a lower crop yield to one specific polluter? How much would it cost to conduct an investigation to determine damages and the source of these damages? What if whatever company does the investigation gets paid off by the polluter to under-estimate or misdirect? That wasn't the question. You CAN'T create a State, and you have to devise a solution in the market. The fact that you can't imagine a solution existing without the State shows me that you lack in imagination.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 15:21
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I get it. You want to use violence against me for following my conscience and wanting no part of your central planning and redistribution schemes. The difference between you and me is that I DON'T want to commit violence against you. I don't want you thrown in a cage for acting in any peaceful way you might wish. You can voluntarily organize with other lefties and experiment with any social organization you please. You seem perfectly happy to violently defend your arbitrary preference of property rights. Would you be okay with failure to co-operate with democratically crafted legislation being enfirced by confiscation of property (which was previously gained and held only through state definition and enforcement) and annulment of citizenship? Because that is a lot harsher than the punishment for most crimes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 15:21
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I get it. You want to use violence against me for following my conscience and wanting no part of your central planning and redistribution schemes. The difference between you and me is that I DON'T want to commit violence against you. I don't want you thrown in a cage for acting in any peaceful way you might wish. You can voluntarily organize with other lefties and experiment with any social organization you please. You aren't better than me, not by a long shot. So let's debate about it!
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 15:23
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:That wasn't the question. You CAN'T create a State, and you have to devise a solution in the market. The fact that you can't imagine a solution existing without the State shows me that you lack in imagination. That's pretty rich coming from the person who just deflected that question back onto us. I'm pretty sure you can create a state -- a lot of people have done it -- and that unlike a market, a state can have the correct incentive structure for dealing with pollution (just as it can have one that can't deal with pollution, as the United States does).
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 15:28
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:The difference between you and me is that I DON'T want to commit violence against you. I don't want you thrown in a cage for acting in any peaceful way you might wish. Yes you do. As I explained earlier, the Libertarian NAP is aggression. It allows for someone to stockpile and hoard things that others need in order to live, both basic necessities and luxury good needed to live a life with dignity. Under the definition of violence I use, a society where there is no safety net for a person to get food if they lack money, social standing, and nobody is feeling charitable enough to feed them is committing violence. The only difference is you have arbitrarily defined taxation as violence but not say society letting you die of thirst because you can't afford to pay a Water Distribution Organization. You have not provided any compelling reason for us to care about this definition but keep insisting on everyone else using it anyway.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 15:29
|
|
|
Hodgepodge posted:You seem perfectly happy to violently defend your arbitrary preference of property rights. Yes, I believe in defense. I would use violence only as an absolute last resort in resolving any conflict, including violations of property rights. I am opposed to violence which is precisely why I believe in private property rights. People need to know who has jurisdiction over the use of what scarce resource, or else conflict and violence are more likely. The entire point of assigning private property rights is conflict avoidance. If I am the first user of something, I homestead a piece of land and mix my labor with it, why exactly does another man have a better claim to that land than I do? If you don't steal my stuff or use aggression against me, I would never dream of using violence against you. I would only interact with you on a voluntary basis.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 15:32
|
|
|
Pththya-lyi posted:Jrod, I'm not going to touch your long posts, but I'd like you to answer a question for me: should people be allowed to sell themselves into slavery? After all, I own my person, and I have the right to sell anything that I own. As long my master-to-be isn't using force or fraud to get me to transfer all my personal rights to him, I don't see how someone who believes in the primacy of property rights can object to such a transaction.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 15:38
|
|
|
Heavy neutrino posted:That's pretty rich coming from the person who just deflected that question back onto us. I'm pretty sure you can create a state -- a lot of people have done it -- and that unlike a market, a state can have the correct incentive structure for dealing with pollution (just as it can have one that can't deal with pollution, as the United States does). It's called a loving thought experiment. Supposing creating a State was impossible, what could you imagine to solve these pressing social concerns? Could you be an entrepreneur and find new and better ways to monitor pollution? Could you create a new rating agency to inform consumers which businesses are reputable and safe to do business with? What about a public advocacy group to hold big business accountable through public pressure and boycotts? Why does the State have the correct incentive structure for dealing with pollution? I'll tell you what is really an incentive to solve a problem. Taking losses and facing bankruptcy. The State has the power to tax and the power to print money. That is the worst possible incentive structure for actually solving problems. Every failing program only gets larger and larger budgets year after year. How is that an incentive to improve? The worst performing programs get the largest budget increases! If you actually understood how the market works, instead of revolting against it, you could think like an entrepreneur and work at solving a problem voluntarily instead of relying on sticking the State's guns at everyone who won't comply with your violent demands.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 15:40
|
|
|
I'm dying of lung cancer, this negative yelp review will be my vengeance.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 15:44
|
|
|
You cannot have private property rights without a state to enforce it unless you're advocating a return to the old west style of enforcement.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 15:45
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:It's called a loving thought experiment. Supposing creating a State was impossible, what could you imagine to solve these pressing social concerns? The best solution would probably be to kill myself because I wouldn't want to live in your totalitarian hellscape where voluntarily forming a State with like minded people was verboten. I'm very sorry no one wants to live in your nightmare world where loving thought crimes are met with punitive measures. -EDIT- And are you actually willing to do a debate or not? A specific time doesn't need to be set but I want a clear confirmation that you're willing to actually go through with it rather than just pretend that you are to make yourself seem more reasonable. Who What Now fucked around with this message at 15:51 on Nov 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 15:47
|
|
|
as a neutral party heretofore only marginally involved in this thread I would be willing to moderate said debate
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 15:56
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:The best solution would probably be to kill myself because I wouldn't want to live in your totalitarian hellscape where voluntarily forming a State with like minded people was verboten. I'm very sorry no one wants to live in your nightmare world where loving thought crimes are met with punitive measures.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 15:58
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Why does the State have the correct incentive structure for dealing with pollution? Most modern states have a form of government called "Democracy" (from the Greek "demos" (people) and "kratos" (rule, or power)). In a Democracy, every few years the people get together and choose who they want to fill certain government positions. If a politician implements suboptimal policies or outright policies the people do not want, they will elect someone who will do that they want. I don't really know how you argue a senator has more job security than a CEO. I suppose if you look at the USA where a former senator can turn around and become a lobbyist it's true, but that's not a universal problem of democracy so much as a problem of capitalism in a democracy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 16:01
|
|
|
ilkhan posted:How do you go from "suppose creating a state is impossible" to "totalitarian hellscape where voluntarily forming a State with like minded people was verboten"? How else do you make creating a State impossible? You either do it through killing anyone trying to do so or through mind control, and I don't like either of those options.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 16:01
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I think these "lifeboat scenarios" don't prove nearly as much as you think they do. You think that by getting me to admit that if I was starving I would violate the non-aggression principle to survive, that somehow discredits libertarianism. I think this is ridiculous. Understand this critical difference, fucknuts. We are not advocating for systems which we would be ethically required to violate in extreme circumstances. Because guess what, those circumstances aren't really that extreme! The destitute are completely at the mercy of others, all the time. Women and children submit themselves to sexual indenture to feed and house themselves on a regular basis, do you understand this? "Statist" society tries to ameliorate this with laws and prosecution, laws that would not exist in your world. It's got a poor track record but it's slowly getting better. Your answer would be to strip away all law that didn't meet your arbitrary definition of "force" and trust that people (wealthy sexual predators for example) would follow their own internal sense of ethics, even violating the new, inviolable NAP when ethics required it. Again, how about gently caress off? How about striving for a society where we don't need to break the supposed one sacred inviolable law to behave ethically?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 16:04
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:How else do you make creating a State impossible? You either do it through killing anyone trying to do so or through mind control, and I don't like either of those options.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 16:06
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Yes, I believe in defense. I would use violence only as an absolute last resort in resolving any conflict, including violations of property rights. I am opposed to violence which is precisely why I believe in private property rights. People need to know who has jurisdiction over the use of what scarce resource, or else conflict and violence are more likely. The entire point of assigning private property rights is conflict avoidance. Why exactly would the first person to use something have the best claim to it? It amounts to historical accident. Contrast that to a claim to be able to use it better (producing more or some unique product), need, or current use (ie, squatting). Mixing one's labour with the land is just another way of saying that one has used it. There is a further component, from Locke, suggesting that mixing one's labour "improves" the land. The subjective nature of this is well-demonstrated by the fact that this definition was used to steal huge amounts of land and other resources from native peoples in the Pacific Northwest and other British holdings. Around where I live, there was actually a lot of agricultural cultivation that went unrecognized because (greed aside) it looked nothing like European agriculture. I would actually go so far as to say that our instinct to favour historical ownership is actually a bias towards the current possessor of a piece of property- as goes the saying that possession is 9/10s of the law. What both recognize is an investment in that property that must be recognized, but that does not preclude other claims entirely. I do agree that some form of property ownership is necessary to avoid conflict, but that definition is ultimately arbitrary and may also lead to conflict. Here is a way to think about the issue of violence: in a draft, one may claim conscientious objector status if one will not even use violence in self-defense. Otherwise, it is hypocritical to be willing to use violence to defend oneself, but not the community. Likewise, it is hypocritical to claim moral superiority for being willing to defend your property as you prefer to define it, but then condemn others for being willing to use violence to enforce their definition of property. Here, the issue is not which property rights are best, just, and/or correct; it is whether violence may be used to enforce property rights. On that question, we do not differ.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 16:07
|
|
|
ilkhan posted:His point wasn't either of those, it was "let's come up with an idea to fix [x] without simply ceding the answer to a bunch of people with power over you and guns to enforce that power over you". In other words, a simpleton's point and one beneath consideration?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 16:08
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:How else do you make creating a State impossible? You either do it through killing anyone trying to do so or through mind control, and I don't like either of those options. Eh this isn't really a big deal. Jrodefeld's description of a stateless utopia is already a Shadowrun-esque horrorshow where security agencies spy on your every move, criminal punishment is only for the poor because justice is for sale on the open market, pollution is dumped on the economically powerless who are compelled by circumstance to assent, and the wealthy buy child slaves at open auctions. The mind control that makes you forget how to organize is going to be way low on your immediate dangers list.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 16:12
|
|
|
ilkhan posted:His point wasn't either of those, it was "let's come up with an idea to fix [x] without simply ceding the answer to a bunch of people with power over you and guns to enforce that power over you". And I don't believe there is an answer that doesn't rely on that, and when he's forced to get down to brass tacks he doesn't believe there is one either. He's ceded multiple times that of someone refuses to comply with the NAP and any attempts to negotiate with them fail then force does eventually become necessary. So that being the case we might as well have a means of applying that force in a reasonable and pre-agreed upon manner because otherwise the answer becomes a group of pissed off people storming the polluters' homes. Do you want lynch mobs? Because that's how you get lynch mobs.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 16:13
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Why I mean by that is simply the non-aggression principle. Acts of aggression should be illegal. All other acts should be legal. What is aggression or not aggression is determined by the concept of private property rights, which come into existence through homesteading or original appropriation. jrodefeld posted:A few have argued that voluntary slavery is indeed consistent with self ownership and libertarian theory. I disagree. Murray Rothbard explains why voluntary slavery cannot exist: Wait, so I can't promise to sell you something that I make later? Trading futures isn't allowed, because I'm trading the future value of my service without knowledge of whether my will is going to change later? Ok, we'll sign a contract that gives punishment for breaching contract. In the case of slaves it's just that lynching is the penalty. It's a legal contract that the person agreed to out of free will. jrodefeld posted:How is that an incentive to improve? The worst performing programs get the largest budget increases! This is the same argument that gives money only to the best performing public schools, when they aren't the ones that need it. The logic here is that if they aren't performing due to a lack of resources, they should get more resources. Sure, it doesn't work all the time (since sometimes it's not a lack of resources that's the problem), but overall, it makes sense. These programs aren't cutthroat competitions to see which can outperform the rest. It's not like we can identify the best-performing government program and throw all our money at it and expect things to get better.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 16:17
|
|
|
What does it say about libertarianism that it solely has to be dealt with as a thought experiment instead of just comparing it to reality or history? e: Like instead of calling us unimaginative for not doing the work of defending your argument for you, how about you present us with the libertarian or market solution to [x] and we just see how it compares with the current solutions offered by reality? You conveniently ignore successes like the NHS or social security but expect to be taken seriously. sudo rm -rf fucked around with this message at 16:45 on Nov 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 16:34
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Some pollution is something we accept because we don't want to die at 25, living a subsistence existence. We need industry to enjoy any sort of quality of life. Wait wait, you're just assuming here that there's some level of pollution that we all accept in your society so it's voluntary. What if someone doesn't accept that level? Is he not justified in using retaliatory force against the person sending unwanted chemicals onto his property against his will? If I'm allowed to use force against someone who walks onto my lawn and refuses to leave, why am I not allowed to use force to stop my neighbor's barbecue from blowing any hint of smoke onto my yard that I, as a raw-foodist, furiously object to being made to endure by his aggression?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 16:34
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Wait wait, you're just assuming here that there's some level of pollution that we all accept in your society so it's voluntary. What if someone doesn't accept that level? Is he not justified in using retaliatory force against the person sending unwanted chemicals onto his property against his will? Furthermore, if he assumes that we all accept some level of pollution as acceptable or even necessary, then why doesn't that apply to other areas of transgression? Why can't we all accept that some level of theft is necessary to not dying at 25 living off of subsistence farming? And why not call that theft taxation?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 16:37
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Furthermore, if he assumes that we all accept some level of pollution as acceptable or even necessary, then why doesn't that apply to other areas of transgression? Why can't we all accept that some level of theft is necessary to not dying at 25 living off of subsistence farming? And why not call that theft taxation? something something a priori argle bargle MEN WITH GUNS 
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 16:39
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:That wasn't the question. You CAN'T create a State, and you have to devise a solution in the market. The fact that you can't imagine a solution existing without the State shows me that you lack in imagination. Ahahahaha seriously? "You can't create a state its against the house rules!"
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 16:47
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:Ahahahaha seriously? Fine, I found an organization that will protect the freedom of all of its dues-paying members who have agreed to abide by its arbitration and rules in exchange for protection. This organization will represent its customers to others, and will take any appropriate actions to defend them from outside aggression. I found Valhalla DRO.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 16:55
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:
Oh gently caress off, engage with the extremely basic criticisms people have leveled, or even just one of them! Or concede the point. jrodefeld posted:Could you be an entrepreneur and find new and better ways to monitor pollution? Could you create a new rating agency to inform consumers which businesses are reputable and safe to do business with? What about a public advocacy group to hold big business accountable through public pressure and boycotts? 1.Maybe, but even if you succeed, so what? You can't force the polluters to stop, and you may not be able to convince anyone to listen to you (and it wouldn't matter if you could, because NAP). 2.Who is going to pay for it? Why would anyone listen to you? The polluters customers live several states over or in another country all together, so they mostly don't give a poo poo. 3. See 2, plus the big polluting corporation can afford way better PR and to buy out way more media saying how great they are than my group of concerned citizens can afford.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 17:23
|
|
|
Goddamnit, I was going to have a nap this morning.  jrodefeld posted:I'm not opposed to the idea of a verbal debate at some point in the future. At the moment I don't even have a webcam nor do I have the sort of privacy to dedicate an hour or two to recording a live debate. Perhaps in the future we could work something out. It could be fun. If and/or when I'll be more than happy to. quote:In any event, I am not trying to change the subject because I can't or don't want to defend my positions. I have a number of things I want to discuss and, like I said, it is unrealistic for me to respond to every post. "I'm not trying to be condescending, but let me tell you how you are all sheeple and thus unable to understand the glory of Austrian Economics." Do you really not understand that a lot of us are former Austrians? Depending on your age it is entirely possible that I was an austrian before you were old enough to know what the word meant, I've just since decided that it is a stupid, shallow, selfish ideology that is not entirely dissimilar to a cult. Stop treating us like we don't understand. We understand your point, we think you are loving wrong. quote:I cannot understand how you can possibly think that Keynesian economic intervention has had a good record over the last century. By "great economic booms" are you referring to the 1950s and 60s? Surely you understand that correlation is not causation. Just because we experienced prosperity in the middle of the 20th century, that does NOT mean it had anything to do with Keynesian economic theory. Just because correlation does not imply causation does not mean that the correlation has no relation to the causation. Global CO2 levels are going up and the world is getting warmer, one correlates to the other, and does in fact cause it. Keynesian economic intervention has a good history of being able to typically predict trends, and to lessen the boom-bust cycle caused by capitalism. I am not at all implying that it is the sole, or even the primary cause for success, I am saying that it does a good job of telling us what sort of economic policy goals we should have. The fact that the dollar has had relatively stable inflation at or around goal targets for the better part of a century is a good example of the sort of policy goal that I'm talking about, though I am sure that you think that having inflation is something to set your hair on fire over. quote:The real history of central banking and Keynesian economic theory goes something more like this: The Federal Reserve was created in 1913 ostensibly in reaction to the Panic of 1907. We were told that the central bank would smooth out the business cycle and provide liquidity to banks. Of course, you would have to be a fool to not understand that some of the most powerful banking figures at the time had sought the creation of a central bank for many decades and their motivations were more selfish. They wanted a cartel to protect their economic interests, to bail them out when times got tough. You sound like a 9/11 truther, just FYI. Going to bring up the Rothschilds and the Bohemian grove next? We introduced a central bank because we could see the success of central banks in other nations. We realized that having a single currency was a boon which we could not easily ignore, especially in light of the literal decades of bank runs, failures and closures. Public sentiment for a Central bank was incredible in the early 1900's and so surprise! We got a Central bank. quote:In any event the first half of the 20th century can hardly be considered a rousing success economically with two world wars and a fifteen year depression. While Keynesian theory was not embraced until the 1930s, surely you can understand the vital role the Fed played in permitting the funding of foolish military interventions like the US intervention into the first world war, facilitating an economic bubble in the late 1920s and permitting the economic interventions of both Hoover and Roosevelt, culminating in another multiple year war effort in the early 1940s. Shall we add "History of the Great Wars" to the list of things you think you know everything about but in reality know almost nothing? The US intervention into both World Wars was essentially forced by outside powers. The US was neutral in the first world war until 1917, and entered the war only after the Germans declared that they were engaging in unrestricted submarine warfare against US ships, something that the germans themselves knew would lead to war after the sinking of RMS Lusitania in 1915. Paul von Hindenburg was famous for believing that with such unrestricted warfare they could win the war before US involvement became a problem. World War II? I seem to recall some sort of... I dunno, like an attack or something? Pearl something? Your argument is basically that because the US had created a central bank, and later divorced itself from the gold standards, that they were able to enter the first and second world wars when otherwise they would not. As we've pointed out to other posters in this very loving thread, that is such an incredibly silly view considering the fact that countries had waged massive wars for decades and centuries before and since. Having a central bank is not why the US entered World War I, and if you honestly think the US getting involved in World War II against the loving Nazis then there is something pretty wrong with you IMHO. quote:I don't want to again rehash the point that the New Deal programs were entirely ineffective in getting the economy out of the Depression and in fact prolonged the crisis, but there are a great many economists and historians who are not Austrians who attest to this fact. Argument by assertion. I'm going to call this out every loving time you do this from now on. You are basically saying, "I'm right, but I don't want to go into detail as to why I'm right, and also there are a ton of people who agree with me but I'm not going to provide any proof." The fact that you can find Austrians and occationally some non-austrians/historians who agree with your point does not make you right or negate the fact that your argument goes against the vast bulk of historical evidence. There were women speakers at the first annual A Voice for Men conference, but that doesn't mean that conference was anything more than a seething pit of misogyny. You are attempting to handwave away an incredible statement. You are attempting to pretend that your position on the great depression is correct despite mountains of historical data and review that are opposed to you. The last few times you have posted 'evidence' it has been rightly shredded. This is very much an instance where you have to prove it or move the gently caress on. quote:Even World War 2 didn't get us out, it only lowered unemployment because everyone was conscripted and the rest were at home building bombs and tanks. You can't eat bombs and tanks. It would be infinitely preferable for these resources to be used producing things that raised peoples standard of living. It would have indeed been preferable for those resources to be used producing things, just as it would have been preferable for the Nazis not to have been gassing people. No one here will argue that it probably wouldn't have been better for the world for there to have not been a second world war and the associated horrors thereof. I'll agree that Keynesian economics got one wrong. You know the difference between Keynesian economics and your bullshit fantasy world? When Keynesian economists got it wrong at the end of World War II that led to decades of study and revision of their models. They realized that they were in fact wrong, and worked to figure out why they were wrong so that they would be less wrong about similar circumstances in the future. Austrians would have simply denied that they were wrong. quote:If you doubt the credibility of Tom Woods as a source (as you no doubt will), look over this article by Richard K.Vedder and Lowell Gallaway. It is humorously titled "The Depression of 1946" since that is what the Keynesians, in all their wisdom and foresight, predicted to occur when the war spending was stopped. Every metric of economic analysis proves the precise opposite and this should have constituted a death blow to Keynes' reputation. If being incorrect about something would cause a death blow to an economic theory then you wouldn't be here because Austrians have been wrong time and time and time again. More to the point, the end of the Second World War was a Sui Generis event, a one of a kind draw down of funding and return of workers to civilian life. There were an incredible number of factors at play which led to the situation being incredibly difficult to predict. Keynesian predictions applied to historic wars were actually correct, for example there was a downturn after WWI, and another after the civil war and so forth. WWII was unusual in that there was no significant recession. Again, you seem to think that if you can point to individual times when Keynesian predictions were wrong that this discredits the field. It doesn't. Keynesian economics is a vast field encompassing thousands of economists with a variety of models. When they are wrong, they try again. They are correct more often than they are wrong, which is what tends to be important in my book. quote:So, massive spending cuts and reallocated capital released from the clutches of State control provides the basis for the economic prosperity of the 1950s. A couple of decades of national fatigue allow the State to loosen it's grip upon the economy and the United States enjoys the post-WW2 prosperity. Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc. You're making the argument that suits the way you want to look at it. I can just as easily (and correctly) say that the US had spent several years building up an incredibly powerful industrial base for the war effort. With the war finished they retooled those same factories that had been paid for with public money into an economic powerhouse the world had never seen, one that also benefitted from the fact that every other major world economy had just finished being bombed into oblivion. Correlation isn't causation, remember?  quote:In the late 1960s through much of the 1970s the United States deceived us into the Vietnam War through the bogus Gulf of Tonkin incident. Such a foolish and protracted military conflict, which was a horrible consequence of the rise of (as Eisenhower warned us about) the military industrial complex, is enabled by easy credit expansion by a central bank. You would have to be a fool to not understand that a printing press makes it easier to take a nation to war. Oh god, you're like that guy earlier who thinks that countries only go to war because something something gold standard. Yeah, I'm going to let someone else handle this. Being wrong about individual events does not discredit an economic theory because economic theory is not a binary "Always right/Always wrong" switch. quote:How exactly is this a good record for Keynesian interventionist economics? I'll go even further. Keynesian theory recommends counter cyclical spending so that national debts don't get out of control. But as we know, credit expansion is a drug that is hard to quit. Politicians need to get reelected after all. New programs need to be implemented and funded. Crony capitalists need subsidies. This isn't an indictment of Keynesianism, its an indictment of public officials that I'll happily agree with. It is worth mentioning that this is largely an issue unique to America, the Canadian government for example was running surplus' as recently as the late 90's and will likely run them again within the decade. quote:And finally, I want to reiterate that inflation is not defined as "rising prices". Inflation is an expansion of the money supply. That is why the Fed can inject "stimulus" (new money) into the economy without prices rising, at least not right away. This new credit expansion causes dislocations and malinvestment through distortion of interest rates and is very harmful weather or not rising prices result immediately. Okay, first off... this is what people were talking about when they talk about you making up words or redefining them to mean what you think they should mean rather than what they mean. In economics inflation is "a sustained increase in the general price level of goods and services in an economy over a period of time." That is its loving definition in economics. We know that this is the case because your example, adding money to the economy, is not the only thing that can cause inflation. Inflation can also be a result of the same amount of dollars chasing fewer goods for example. It can also be a result of simple lack of faith in the purchasing power of a currency. quote:Christina Romer, chairwoman of the Council of Economic Advisers under Barack Obama, found that the numbers and dating used by the National Bureau of Economic Research exaggerate both the number and the length of economic downturns prior to the creation of the Fed. She is hardly an Austrian ideologue. In so doing, the NBER likewise overestimates the Fed’s contribution to economic stability. Recessions were in fact not more frequent in the pre-Fed than the post-Fed period. Okay, a couple of quick things. First off, your quoted article is misleading as gently caress. The article you are quoting there is written by Thomas E. Woods not Christina Romer or George Selgin. Source your loving quotes or at least link to them. Secondly, [url=http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/BusinessCycles.html] is the only thing Christina Romer had to say on the subject you were discussing there. At least, this is the only thing I can find, feel free to try and prove me wrong. I've quoted her conclusion from that source. quote:Recessions in the early postwar era were of roughly the same average severity as those before World War I, although they were somewhat less frequent than in the earlier period and were more consistently of moderate size. The decreasing frequency of downturns reflects progress in economic policymaking. The Great Depression brought about large strides in the understanding of the economy and the capacity of government to moderate cycles. The Employment Act of 1946 mandated that the government use the tools at its disposal to stabilize output and employment. And indeed, economic policy since World War II has almost certainly counteracted some shocks and hence prevented some recessions. In the early postwar era, however, policymakers tended to carry expansionary policy too far, and in the process caused inflation to rise. As a result, policymakers, particularly the Federal Reserve, felt compelled to adopt contractionary policies that led to moderate recessions in order to bring inflation down. This boom-bust cycle was a common feature of the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s. Bolded sections are mine. The short version is that she agrees with me and thinks you are loving wrong. As for your quoted source, I am not at all surprised to find that an Austrian economist who writes for Ron Paul's homeschool program believes that the Fed isn't doing a good job. quote:You still don't seem to understand the Austrian position on the business cycle. We are NOT saying that an economic bubble can ONLY be formed by a central bank. Rather, that the cause of the business cycle is excessive credit expansion and the unsustainable projects that are undertaken as a result. Whether such a bubble is caused by a central bank or other State interventions, the cure for such economic maladies is the same. As soon as possible halt the unnecessary expansion, permit prices to work and allow the necessary market correction to occur. If there are not sufficient savings to finance economic expansions, then they should not be undertaken. If there is malinvestment in a certain sector of the economy, those resources should be reallocated away from those unsustainable projects towards more urgently needed ends. The problem with this is that recessions have shrunk in both number and severity since the Federal Reserve came into existence, something which should be utterly impossible under your business cycle. I'll give that one single example of you being utterly wrong doesn't disprove anything, and that there is even some merit to the austrian business cycle insofar as it is very similar to the Keynesian one, except that it is focused on the supply side rather than demand (which is dumb.) quote:As I have demonstrated, Keynesian economics has had a terrible record both in predicting future economic trends and in supposedly smoothing out the business cycle. The Fed has given us a century of war, the Great Depression, constant price inflation, Stagflation in the 1970s, and the tech bubble and housing bubble. Again, please loving stop with this. You look like such an rear end in a top hat every time you smugly go "As I have demonstrated" even though you know people are going to disagree with you. You haven't demonstrated poo poo. Moreover, the Fed has not given us a century of war, or the great depression, or the tech/housing bubble. I'll give you inflation (though I dont' think that is a bad thing.) quote:It is a real shame that the only alternative was a form of "economic intervention for the rich", otherwise known as conservative supply side economics. Not much of an improvement. As one poster put it in the Eripsa thread, you are begging the question so loving hard you're going to end up in county lockup if you keep this going. Inflation is not loving theft. Taxation is not loving theft. The fact that you redefine the word theft and inflation to mean what you want them to mean does not somehow mean that you are right. Also it is moral for the state to do it because we as a society have agreed to let the state set monetary policy, which is the only reason we have a dollar to inflate in the first place. quote:Why can't money be seen as a store of value? At one time it was possible for people to merely put away US dollars (which were really certificates indicating a certain amount of gold) for their retirement content in the knowledge that the money would be worth as much or more than when they put it in their savings account or hid it under the mattress. Why create uncertainty and anxiety for so many when they have to live with the fact that their money will be worth less, likely FAR less, when they retire? You push people into investing in the Stock Market just to have a hope of making ends meet in the long run. Most people have no business being in the stock market but they are left with little choice./quote] Roughly 330 million americans and counting? Alternately, anyone with enough sense to believe in the full faith and credit in the US government. Alternately, The same people who would put away shiny rocks to save for retirement? quote:Say whatever you want about the era of the Gold Standard in the United States, but the indisputable truth is that the dollar actually gained in value by about 7% over the course of the 19th and early 20th century. Not only was there no inflation over the long run, but money appreciated in value. And during that time we saw an unprecedented expansion of the US economy. It was stupid. It was retarded. It was unsafe. It led to fiscal policy that drastically increased the length of the worst recession in modern history. It was based solely around the holding of shiny rocks. Sorry, you said to say what I wanted. The dollar gaining value was not a good thing. The dollar gaining value meant that we were suffering from deflation which actively supresses interest in the economy and increases the value of real debts owed. Most people don't ever have the opportunity to save much, with or without inflation. They do however, have equity in their home, which benefits from inflation by decreasing the value of that debt over time. Also, Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc. The fact that we had a gold economy has nothing to do with the fact that the US saw an unprecedented expansion during that time. For one thing they used silver for a long of that, for another, it was the fact that they were undergoing industrialization that made the difference. Russia wasn't on a gold standard when they industrialized, but they had unprecedented expansion as well. quote:While we debate the economic panics before versus after the creation of the Federal Reserve, it should not be forgotten that we are living in an age of perpetual inflation and depreciation of the value of the dollar while prior to the Fed, money actually appreciated. Nice word choice, inflation and depreciation vs. appreciation. Money did indeed deflated before the Fed, that was not a good thing. It also bounced around like a loving crack baby, with annual swings of roughly 10-20% of its value in a given year, making it incredibly difficult to use. That is to say nothing of the 'free banking era' and the idiocy of multiple currencies. quote:You wonder why so few of us save money anymore and why we are all saddled with personal debt? That is one very good reason. It is impossible to plan for the future calculating the cost of living in a decade or so. This has next to nothing to do with why most people save. The vast majority of americans don't save money because greedy motherfuckers who express the ideas that you support do their absolute best to suppress their wages to the point where they can barely afford to eat. Your typical mcdonalds employee needs food stamps to eat, he doesn't give a drat about inflation because he is unable to save money and continue to live. quote:If you cannot refute a claim I make without self contradiction, otherwise known as a performative contradiction, I DID in fact prove the validity of the claim. I don't know why you are so intent on denying the power of logic and deductive reasoning and the law of non contradiction. Your claim was that Economics was "unique among the sciences since every participant in the study of economics has a great incentive to pervert the data to their own advantage." I posited an example of a completely separate discipline that was also subject to the same forces that you claimed were 'unique'. That is not making a self contradiction. If you'll look, there is no point where I state that economics is not subject to being purchased, in fact I can agree with that wholeheartedly. My point was that it is not unique, and it is something that your position is also subject to. Thus it is not an argument against Keynesian or other economics in specific. You need to work on your reading comprehension before you lecture me on logic. quote:Anyone at any time is free to refute any of the axioms that Austrians support. It is just that they have to do it through discourse. If I say "these are the necessary implications of the action axiom and thus form the basis for the study of economics" then anyone is free to attempt to prove how the implications we deduce are wrong. If they can do so without contradiction, without making an error in their reasoning, then we will be glad to discard the refuted axiom. First off, No. Say it in your words or don't say it at all. I'm not debating and discussing with your article, I am debating and discussing with you. Secondly, no one is arguing that we require constant empirical testing to know anything about humans. We can absolutely make inferences and guesses as to how human beings will react. What people are chiding you on is that your economic philosophy is one that believes that in the event that we do go and test its beliefs in the real world, that it can only gain support. Praxeology believes that if the evidence contradicts what you 'know' to be true, that it must be the evidence that is wrong. It has been pointed out, multiple times to the point of mockery, that 'humans act' is a pointless statement. All it means is that 'Some humans act, sometimes'. That tells us nothing about economics, or anything else for that matter. quote:Yes, this is true. Just because there are economic incentives for economists to support Keynesian interventions and not criticize the Fed, that does not discredit the ideas themselves. But it remains true that it is far more lucrative personally to provide the role of "court historian" and State apologist than it is to support a heterodox school of thought like the Austrian School of economics. I actually disagree with this to some extent. For example, the Koch Brothers recently donated enough to effectively purchase hiring and firing rights for the University of Florida an Alaska economics departments. Two rich men with an ideological bias are directly deciding who gets to teach at two large, public institutions. I cannot think of a single example where a Keynesian or other classical economics discipline was so overtly purchased. While I admit that it is possible that people purchase Keynesian research, I honestly think you overestimate it. Generally speaking you usually purchase research to get the results that you want, while I believe that Keynesian research typically produces the results that already match with policy objectives of the people who support it. Card Kruger aren't being bought to produce pro-minimum wage studies, for example, while I can't entirely say the same for the other side. quote:Of all the crazy things you have said this must be near the top. If Austrian economics only appeals to people in power, why is it not embraced by the media, by the big banks, by politicians? It is certainly not because it is "not scientific". That never stopped the powers that be from embracing any other number of policies or ideas. If the "powerful" in society truly benefited from propagating the ideas of the Austrian School, it would be far more well known. The fact that it is not, the fact that The Mises Institute relies on small donors and is run on a shoe string budget proves exactly the opposite. Because it is still a fringe ideology. I probably should have said privilege over power however. It is a square/rectangle issue. Not all people who are privileged believe in austrian bullshit, but everyone who believes in austrian bullshit is privileged. That's an oversimplification of course, since there are people who are poor who believe in austrian economics, but as I pointed out the demographics are typically very, very hard against them. quote:I don't know if your figures are correct about libertarianism, but I find it absurd for you to think that because someone happens to be male and/or white, that automatically gives them "power". For someone who professes to love science and empiricism such statements should be irrelevant. They are correct.  Well mostly, it is actually 94% non-hispanic white (jesus), 68% male. That chart doesn't have wealth but even without the source on that simple statistics could tell you they are typically middle class because they are 94% non-hispanic white and largely male. And no, judging a movement based on its demographics is not irrelevant, because it tells us a lot. What sort of movement only appeals to white people. I actually can't think of an example of any movement that appeals 94% to white people other than maybe the loving Clan. The fact that libertarian beliefs do not appeal to the poor, or minorities tells us a lot, in my opinion anyways.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 17:36
|
|
|
I'm kind of surprised that jrodefeld doesn't have a big red text saying "SURELY WE CAN AGREE THAT I AM BOGGLINGLY STUPID" yet.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 17:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 01:39 |
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:I'm kind of surprised that jrodefeld doesn't have a big red text saying "SURELY WE CAN AGREE THAT I AM BOGGLINGLY STUPID" yet. It'd be a waste of money (like the last few times he got red texted) because it'll vanish when he inevitably gets banned again.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 17:44
|
|
