Juffo-Wup posted:Only because the data to support that conclusion isn't there. If it turned out that unrestrained markets in every sector made people better off, then I'd jump right on board the Mises train. Incidentally, I think this is the attitude that Jrod lacks that makes arguing with him insufferable. He is insensitive to argument, on principle. Yes. It is primarily an empirical problem in that respect.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2015 16:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 06:14 |
|
|
Disinterested posted:Mises I think is saying It must just be his writing style because the way he says it just seems kind of extreme. But then this is LVM.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2015 16:38
|
|
|
Jrod, is the state a necessary stepping stone to a stateless society, or is it an historical aberration?
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2015 16:48
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:It must just be his writing style because the way he says it just seems kind of extreme. But then this is LVM. The main problematic thing LVM is doing there is wonkily redefining utility as a way of assessing why one does something in its own terms - in other words, 'x is good if it is good at doing what it sets out to do' rather than 'x is good because is the best for the largest number'. That passage is intended to be a way of calling out other free market advocates for saying that 'the market is good because it's natural or because it's what natural law indicates is the correct form of social organisation'.
|
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2015 16:51
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:The main problematic thing LVM is doing there is wonkily redefining utility as a way of assessing why one does something in its own terms - in other words, 'x is good if it is good at doing what it sets out to do' rather than 'x is good because is the best for the largest number'. Yeah, although I'd say that for LVM, he would say "the greatest good for the greatest number" is incoherent. His philosophy doesn't question what people choose as good or bad, only that they do so and that they then act to get the good, thus the most good must come from leaving everyone absolutely free to act banning only the use of coercion by one person on another because coercion sets up a irreconcilable conflict between the good as defined by two different people. Of course, it turns out this is wrong, and leaving someone free to act doesn't necessarily maximise the good, even from that person's own point of view. When I buy something from an unethical company, I'm usually not making a rational decision that I prefer the amount of pollution or child slavery or whatever they bring to the world. More likely I'm ignorant of it, or their crimes seem distant and too far removed, or I have no practical superior choice, or I just plain don't have the time to be an informed consumer making socially conscious purchases everywhere. Turns out that's a lot of information, being an informed consumer takes serious work, and putting the burden on me by leaving me "free" to do it all myself means those realities maneuver me into monetarily supporting things I oppose. When I go to a restaurant, what I want is safe, edible food prepared in a hygienic kitchen. I don't want to be awarded the "freedom" negotiate an inspection with the manager and test my own food for E.Coli.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2015 17:15
|
|
|
There's a strong current in normative ethics that sees 'rationality' as denoting a kind of facility for means-ends reasoning, and furthermore that the maximally rational action just is the morally best action, which entails that to act immorally is to be less than perfectly rational. (I think this comes out of a sort of Platonic tradition where the necessary and sufficient condition of virtue is to apprehend the form of The Good). The libertarian twist seems to be to take it as given that we are perfectly rational, and therefore any decision we make (on the basis of means-ends reasoning?) must be the all-things-considered (read: morally) best thing to do.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2015 17:56
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Which makes it especially I never knew that Mises didn't even believe in natural rights. Why is that all internet Libertarians ever seem to talk about then, if they like Mises so much?  (I know why)
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2015 19:19
|
|
Time to read Zinn posted:I never knew that Mises didn't even believe in natural rights. Why is that all internet Libertarians ever seem to talk about then, if they like Mises so much? None of them even bother to read Mises.
|
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2015 19:28
|
|
|
Time to read Zinn posted:I never knew that Mises didn't even believe in natural rights. Why is that all internet Libertarians ever seem to talk about then, if they like Mises so much? Their functioning knowledge of philosophy can be summed up as vaguely remembering the cliffsnotes of Locke/Hobbes/Rousseau from high school and then reading Rothbard/Hoppe essays. It's also why they never respond when people cite Rawls or Nozick.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2015 19:29
|
|
|
Is this the thread to post poorly worded defenses of Ross Ulbricht?quote:It's true that freedom is a key enabler of people exercising their power irresponsibly and harming innocents as a result. The problem with authoritarians is that they believe it is acceptable to curtail everyone's freedom in order to attempt to prevent a few bad actors from abusing it. Ross Ulbricht's actions reduced the violence inherent to the illegal drug trade by providing a platform for people to conduct voluntary trade from the safety of their own home; he was in no way responsible for other people who used their newfound freedoms irresponsibly. I have no qualms publicly stating that it is my life's mission to subvert authoritarians in every way possible, chiefly through the application of liberating technology. The war between the Cypherpunks and the States has only just begun. Please ignore the fact that he tried to place two hits on people's lives.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2015 14:18
|
|
|
George Reisman has a new essay, here's the Amazon descriptionquote:This essay shows that the goal of equality of opportunity is both absurd and vicious. Achieving it would require that children all be raised in the same environment and have the same genetic inheritance. In contrast, the essay shows that what we should actually strive for is the freedom of opportunity. Freedom of opportunity means the ability to exploit the opportunities afforded by reality, without being stopped by the initiation of physical force, in particular the initiation of physical force by the government or that takes place with the sanction of the government. Fuckin objectivism.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2015 14:50
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Fuckin objectivism.
|
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2015 15:19
|
|
|
Phone posted:Is this the thread to post poorly worded defenses of Ross Ulbricht? I feel like I could go on at length about how this is all entirely bullshit because using technology to be "disruptive " not only doesn't make you a hero, it turns you into uber and strips away all the good things the state can so once again a select few can be "market visionaries" and exploit others without even doing any real work. VitalSigns posted:George Reisman has a new essay, here's the Amazon description Someone read the first paragraph of egalitarianism on Wikipedia and felt that it was risky someone might be OK with the idea of cooperation.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2015 15:28
|
|
|
Phone posted:Is this the thread to post poorly worded defenses of Ross Ulbricht? He tried to have 6 people killed, because in one of them he directed the supposed hitman to also kill his spouse and kids.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2015 15:58
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:He tried to have 6 people killed, because in one of them he directed the supposed hitman to also kill his spouse and kids. I also posted the response in the yospos thread, but  I would post the earlier bits, but it's just some lightweight "Ross got screwed by his own doing  " garbage.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2015 16:08
|
|
|
The story on ars technica doesa good job of illustrating how we have an entire sub culture of irresponsible shitheads that has been reinforced by the internet and if we ran the world their way, there wouldnt be one. People like this are why I'm always quick to point out how all our technological and scientific progress happens in spite of their parasitic behavior instead of their free market dry humping. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/05/sunk-how-ross-ulbricht-ended-up-in-prison-for-life/ quote:"I could buy anything"
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2015 16:24
|
|
|
I wasn't even going to put out any hits until they brought it up! loving statists, violence is always the first solution for you isn't it?
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2015 17:15
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:George Reisman has a new essay, here's the Amazon description I do love how Labor Unions, a private entity are being blamed here. I mean its almost as though he wants some other entity to eliminate them.....
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2015 17:17
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:I do love how Labor Unions, a private entity are being blamed here. I mean its almost as though he wants some other entity to eliminate them..... The Pinkerton's?
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2015 17:34
|
|
|
Caros posted:The Pinkerton's? Of course they would only be using violence on property that they are authorized, and Reisman and other Austrians wouldn't support violence in areas they are not authorized.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2015 17:45
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I wasn't even going to put out any hits until they brought it up! loving statists, violence is always the first solution for you isn't it? Not that you've likely forgotten, but this is as good a time as any to remind the thread that bitcoiner libertarians have argued that hiring assassins doesn't violate NAP and isn't really violence on the part of whomever chooses so to do.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2015 17:48
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:Not that you've likely forgotten, but this is as good a time as any to remind the thread that bitcoiner libertarians have argued that hiring assassins doesn't violate NAP and isn't really violence on the part of whomever chooses so to do. *in a loud voice* Who will rid me of this troublesome
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2015 17:50
|
|
|
Gladiatorial battles to the death would obviously be allowed in Libertaria, yes? Or is that a line too far even for them? It's not.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2015 18:48
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:The story on ars technica doesa good job of illustrating how we have an entire sub culture of irresponsible shitheads that has been reinforced by the internet and if we ran the world their way, there wouldnt be one. People like this are why I'm always quick to point out how all our technological and scientific progress happens in spite of their parasitic behavior instead of their free market dry humping. It's probably a derail but the story of how they got Ulbricht's laptop always gets a laugh out of me. I mean I can picture a real FBI task force realizing that they should get the laptop before he turned it off and the encryption set in, I can even imagine them coming up with a crazy scheme to get it, but a male and female agent pretending to be a couple in a heated argument to distract him is straight out of a bad police procedural on a major American TV network  . Like have they worked together for years and the other agents have a betting pool going on how long before they hook up? Is one of them by-the-book and the other witty and laid back? I hear that story and my mind brings up images from Castle/Moonlighting/Psych etc.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2015 19:18
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Gladiatorial battles to the death would obviously be allowed in Libertaria, yes? Or is that a line too far even for them? Hey man it's totally fine if both parties agreed to it ahead of time and knew what they were getting into. Just ignore that it would probably very often be people so utterly desperate that they had few other choices. Now let me tell you about how it's morally acceptable for a man to sell himself into slavery...
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2015 20:28
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Hey man it's totally fine if both parties agreed to it ahead of time and knew what they were getting into. Just ignore that it would probably very often be people so utterly desperate that they had few other choices. Now let me tell you about how it's morally acceptable for a man to sell himself into slavery... Well duh. I mean it's not like that sort of society would ever engage in any truly despicable, immoral behavior that aggressed towards its citizens...like  LEVYING TAXES TO PAY FOR INFRASTRUCTURE MAINTENANCE!!!
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2015 20:44
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:Well duh. I mean it's not like that sort of society would ever engage in any truly despicable, immoral behavior that aggressed towards its citizens...like Those taxes were theft! I didn't ask for that infrastructure, so I shouldn't have to pay for it! Of course I use it every day, I'm a free man!
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2015 21:13
|
|
|
 Libertarian demographics.  That leads me to some questions for Jrod if he ever comes back this summer. Have ever talked to someone in real life, outside of your circle of friends, about libertarianism/an-cap? Someone who is a different color or sex than you? Because I think I'd have an easier time convincing someone that single payer healthcare is a good idea than you would stumping for complete deregulation. Most people see Libertarianism for what it is. It's an undemocratic power grab for people who are bad at business. The kind of people who have to lie and cheat their way through life to get ahead. It enshrines bullying as the highest value. Do you really think that anybody ever became a libertarian motivated primarily by the conviction that that was the best way to help the downtrodden? Do you care about them at all? Can you imagine what a minority would think after reading the complete works of Rothbard or Hoppe? Do you think a minority would think less of you as a person after you told them to read their material? What actual measures would you take to help those in need, those who have historically been powerless in society? Because it seems to me like the answers that libertarianism propose at best throw the baby out with the bathwater (or neglect the baby in an An-Cap's case) or they crush the needy underfoot. You can't simply buy and sell your way to a better tomorrow with free market magicks. I have a feeling you'll say, "Vote with your wallet!", but is that really fair? Say I join Valhalla DRO. Ten of my friends and I want to some how influence the direction the DRO takes in the future. But some multi-billionaire jackass wants some flat ground, a fast car, a couple of birds at his side, and to feel the wind in his air. My friends and I on the other hand would rather crush our enemies, see them driven before us, and to hear the lamentations of their women. We're solidly middle class but this guy easily dwarfs our purchasing power. How is that fair? How is that in anyway democratic? The traditionally marginalized suffer in the same way. Under libertarianism the rich will get richer, the poor will get a boot on their neck. Yes, society as a whole has to change its culture to create a fairer and juster world. The state can't do it all, but it does have an important role to play. We can pass meaningful laws that protect the abused while assuring those who cling to their lovely, unfair beliefs that they will answer for their injustice towards others. HP Artsandcrafts fucked around with this message at 02:23 on May 31, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 02:17
|
|
|
HP Artsandcrafts posted:
Democracy is evil remember. If he has more money than you then he should have more say than you do, simple as that.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 03:05
|
|
|
It's nice to finally have evidence that libertarians are pretty much just Republicans without the courage to admit it.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 03:10
|
|
|
Caros posted:Democracy is evil remember. If he has more money than you then he should have more say than you do, simple as that. I figured that would be the answer I'd get. I just wanted to see if Jrod was capable of empathy, or at least shame. I've been coming in contact with other libertarians of various stripes so I've been doing some research of my own. I've gone from just disliking libertarianism to being completely repulsed by it.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 03:45
|
|
|
HP Artsandcrafts posted:I figured that would be the answer I'd get. I just wanted to see if Jrod was capable of empathy, or at least shame. Do recall that jrod has given multiple sloppy blow jobs to a guy who thinks that monarchy is better than democracy and that the "natural social elites" are being kept down by the masses. Jrodefeld is explicitly antidemocratic. That wasn't a joke that I posted above, more of a paraphrasing
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 07:25
|
|
|
Well yeah, why would you ever want people without hilariously collosal piles of gold to ever have a say in how the police operate and what substances can be dumped in the environment and how much fertilizer can be stored in a warehouse in the middle of town?
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 08:10
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:My response would be something like. rudatron fucked around with this message at 12:04 on May 31, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 10:40
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:If you're being serious about this I am happy to recommend things. While I certainly appreciate the recommendations, I think you may have misunderstood what I was requesting. My argument, to put it bluntly, is that libertarian market anarchism is the best and most morally justified way of organizing society. Since you all object, I was hoping for a more targeted refutation of liberalism. I've heard it said a few times in this thread that I am not doing my own tradition justice. Other times it has been claimed that, while there are indeed deep and serious thinkers who are libertarians, or the intellectual forefathers of libertarian thought, I instead rely on "unserious" people like Rothbard, Walter Block, and Ron Paul. The very fact that you have recommended books by John Locke, Adam Smith, Frederick Hayek and Robert Nozick (many of whose work I have read) seems to indicate that you consider them serious thinkers who have made significant contributions to economics, political theory and philosophy. I don't want to put words in your mouth. On forums such as this it becomes difficult to recall which individual posters have claimed which things. Nevertheless I recall people wondering why I don't quote "respectable" people like Nozick rather than relying on cranks like Rothbard and Block. This odd dichotomy that the left sometimes makes between those libertarian or broadly-speaking free market advocates who are respectable versus fringe and loony is odd, especially when the arguments offered are so similar. Tom Woods often quips about the 3x5 card of "allowable opinion". It is a corny line but one with undeniable truth to it. There are intellectuals who have made arguments that I find reprehensible yet I don't feel any compulsion to "banish" them from respectable society if they have contributed significantly to any field of study. Yet this tendency to make outcasts of certain people for no other apparent reason than they strayed too far out of the mainstream is troubling to say the least. Frederick Hayek is respectable. We can even award him the Nobel Prize. Ludwig von Mises,. his teacher, is not respectable even though he pioneered the work that Hayek won the Nobel Prize for. Robert Nozick is respectable but Rothbard is not respectable, even though Nozick was introduced to libertarianism and persuaded largely due to the work of Rothbard. This goes on and on and on. Again, I appreciate the suggestions but I am not looking for suggestions about libertarian literature at the moment. Rather I would like recommendations of the work that best sums up "YOUR" political views and/or effectively dismantles the libertarian argument. It's always valuable to be familiar with opposing points of view. I'm sure I have cited an awful lot more books and intellectuals who I feel have made persuasive points that defend my position than have any of you. And, to the extent that you feel I have sold my own position short, I'd appreciate a fuller explanation. What arguments that Nozick, for example, makes do you think are superior or more clarifying than the sort I have relied upon?
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 11:32
|
|
|
Caros posted:Its cheaper than hiring a $500 an hour mistress to dominate the poo poo out of your obvious masochistic needs? Moreover, its you. You are the spectacle. I won't respond point by point here but I want to say a few general things about what you have said. In the first place, you read my last post without the slightest intention to comprehend what I was trying to say. I am trying to point out that the tradition of liberalism, of natural rights theory, of liberty and the sorts of argument propounded by modern libertarian thinkers is far more broad and sweeping than you are acknowledging. Liberalism, as a modern tradition, goes back at least 400 years with roots that go back even further. I am expressing the historical reality that, prior to the "Progressive Era" at the start of the 20th Century, proponents of market anarchism and liberalism articulated their views quite differently than do many modern libertarians. Being opposed to the State and in favor of markets did not equate to support for business power or corporate dominance as many in the mainstream left today would claim. You yourself claimed that Gary Chartier was "one of the good ones" when it came to libertarianism because his values were more similar to your own, in contrast to those who you probably think are reactionary. I feel that Chartier and Richman and many others are doing nobel work in resurrecting the forgotten tradition of anarchism and anti-capitalist free markets. Some term this "left-libertarianism". Much of this is about semantics but much of it is not. I think it would be a very interesting discussion if you would actually take a few minutes to scan some of the articles I posted or listen to a few of the chapters I selected from the "Markets not Capitalism" book and respond to the arguments contained. In fact, I'd be curious to get your reaction to the "left-libertarian" perspective at large. For that matter, I'd be curious of your view of the mutualists and other flavors of anarchist such as Proudhon. I think this would be interesting. I really cannot believe that you posted a link to an AlterNet article. Alternet is akin to Salon in that they seem to specialize in cranking out uninformed and largely unsubstantiated smears of libertarianism. The fact that you posted this article (which I did read by the way) shows me how little you understood the point I was trying to get across. The narrative the left desperately wants to promote is that libertarianism is a modern aberration that was conceived by a handful of ultra rich financiers simply because it benefited their own pocketbook. Corporations love libertarianism, so the mythology goes, and if they had their way, they would destroy the State entirely and we'd all be subjugated at the feet of a small handful of monopolists without the State to protect us. It is this mythology that people like Chartier and his fellow left-libertarians are desperately trying to dislodge from the minds of the mainstream left. The reality of freed markets is considerably different from what you think. As opposed to thin libertarians who more heavily rely on their articulation of first principles, and the primacy of the individual and non-aggression, left-libertarians spend a lot more time explaining the practical effects of genuinely freed markets on pollution, on the labor movement, on the environment and things of that nature. Leftist movements would be much more successful if they ceased relying on political action and instead relied on mass movements to remove artificial privilege provided by State enforced law. In short this means dismantling the State and allowing the market to "eat the rich" and provide for social justice and equality. I want to say something else about Gabrielle Kolko. You again misunderstood why I was quoting him. I never claimed he was a libertarian or agreed with myself, Rothbard or anyone else. But do you honestly not understand the difference between the role of a political theorist and a historian? Kolko is a historian. His book "The Triumph of Capitalism" is a work of revisionist history that seeks to explain how the conventional account of the Progressive Era is entirely backwards and misleading. It is about historical fact, about motivations and about correcting the record. In this area, libertarians have been arguing the exact same thing. The institutions and policies enacted during that time were agitated for by big business interests. The Progressive Revolution, therefore, was not a leftist revolution in favor of equity for the working class or government reigning in the excesses of business greed. On the contrary, certain business leaders wanted to consolidate and protect their profits that they earned on the market and turned to government in order to make that happen. That is the position that libertarians have taken. And it is one that Kolko also eloquently defends in his great work. What the gently caress does in matter if Kolko agrees with libertarians on any other issue? Sure Kolko doesn't believe in the "free market" as understood by libertarians. And no doubt he was pissed off when Reason erroneously called him a "libertarian". He had every right to be. If I make a claim about a historical event, then surely you would want some evidence to support the assertion. What I am arguing is that Kolko's "The Triumph of Conservatism" provides that evidence for this specific assertion as well as any historical work that has been published. How can these be so confusing to you? The work of a historian is not to pontificate on what their ideal society ought to be, but to articulate and/or correct the historical record by recounting facts about historical events.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 12:21
|
|
|
Caros posted:I think you have it wrong to be honest. As I mentioned in my post above, I don't think Jrodefeld actually changed his opinion on capitalism so much as he was told to change it. His entire post today can be traced back entirely to the section at the end where he tries to get us to go and read "Markets not Capitalism". Jrodefeld doesn't like the word capitalism now because he read a book that told him that Capitalism is bad and what he should actually be free markets. No, wait. Freed Markets. How long ago has it been that I linked to Sheldon Richman's "Free Market Anti-Capitalism, The Unknown Ideal"? This isn't some new idea. I have no problem with the word capitalism as it is used between libertarians, because we know what it means. I don't think it is particularly useful and maybe a detriment when speaking to anyone else. I guess I should be offended that you deemed to insult me with the label "parrot"? Was that the intended effect? I read Markets Not Capitalism several months ago, in fact, but I have read the work of Chartier and Richman for many years now and I have been aware of their arguments. I am attempting to get you to understand the breadth of libertarian thought though. I don't particularly recall you responding to the arguments of people like Chartier and Richman. What I have come to realize is that it is far too convenient for you to discount the arguments of people like Rothbard. You've been fully convinced that the modern libertarian movement is a bought and paid for racket created by billionaires to benefit them, with deep strains of racism and sexism throughout. Was it you who said something to the effect of "What do I care about anything Rothbard has to say? He once said that parents have the right to let their child starve." This is clearly a facetious argument since whatever Rothbard's views on another topic, it doesn't invalidate the argument at hand. You'd probably be forced to confront the arguments rather than blather on about how racist and/or sexist the proponents are with Chartier and Richman. And what exactly is wrong with "parroting" an argument that I find persuasive? I read a book that I thought was informative and persuasive and I take what I consider the best parts of the argument and use it in my own defenses of the market. How, pray tell, do you come to your understanding of political issues? I doubt very much you sit in isolation and come up with every thing you believe on your own.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 12:38
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:jrod didn't even come to libertarianism on his own, he became one because his mom was one. Dude hasn't had an original thought since before middle school, which coincidentally might have been when he first registered here. Where did I say that? This is a libelous statement if there ever was one.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 12:41
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Well this isn't a priori at all. In fact, I can think of examples that contradict it just off the top of my head. You misunderstand the argument. The nature of a voluntary economic transaction is that both participants anticipate being made better off by the transaction. How often when you are out shopping are you expecting to be made worse off by paying for items? Never. You buy food because you value food more than the money it takes to buy it. Value is subjective. Value is not based upon the labor used to produce something, as the Marxists erroneously claimed, but exists only in the minds of individual economic actors. People who act have value scales and priorities. People prefer eating and drinking over frivolous activities like seeing a movie. But it remains true that when we act voluntarily to make an economic transaction, we are expressing that we prefer the choice we made and the value we expect to receive more than the cost to us to make the transaction. Explaining that people make mistakes and end up worse off because of their decisions doesn't refute this principle. People still expected to be made better off in the moment than any other alternative action they could have taken instead. They still preferred the product they bought over the money they had to spend. The still preferred the job they took over any other job opportunities they had instead. This is only an a priori truth about action if the action is being made without direct coercion. If people have choices, then the action they chose meant that they expressed their value preferences and expected to be made better off through that choice in comparison to any competing available choice. If this is still confusing to you, then tell me what you don't understand and I'll expand on my remarks.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 12:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 06:14 |
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Which makes it especially I know that Mises was a utilitarian. Where did I ever say otherwise? And are you honestly implying that I can't be a "real" libertarian if I don't subscribe wholesale to everything that Mises ever wrote? I have to correct you in that I don't rely on "Human Action" as a basis for any moral system. Economics is not a normative discipline. "Human Action" is a book that outlines the scope of economics, a method of understanding the causes and effects of human interaction on a society-wide scale. Austrian economics is not synonymous with libertarianism either. Ethics and normative considerations are the purview of political philosophy and not of economics. And no, I haven't read "Human Action" in its entirety. Have you? I have to mention though, that Mises' Utilitarianism was quite different than the sort of utilitarianism propounded on by most throughout history. As Roderick Long puts it: quote:You might think that if someone says economics implies utilitarianism, it sounds like they think that economics implies a positive ethical theory — because we usually think of utilitarianism as a particular ethical theory, a theory that says that certain things are objectively good. The standard versions of utilitarianism, like John Stuart Mill's version, assert that a certain goal — human welfare, happiness, pleasure, satisfaction — is intrinsically valuable and worth pursuing, objectively so. And then our job is to pursue it. Mises was a pioneer in so many ways. Most libertarians who followed him have largely abandoned his utilitarianism as inadequate. There are certainly libertarians who embrace utilitarian arguments. But, since Value is Subjective, like Mises said, "measuring" utility in the way that most utilitarians suggest, is impossible. It is more accurate to say that Mises' contributions to libertarianism were merely incomplete rather than objectively wrong from the standpoint of a deontologist. His scope was merely the study of human action and its effects, rather than judging the outcomes of those actions.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 13:22
|
|