|
GunnerJ posted:One of the most common criticisms of communism is that it contradicts human nature and it failed because you can't force human beings to behave in a way contrary to their nature. Ironically, it is libertarians and their fellow travelers who love this argument against communism, but whether that is a fair or accurate argument or not, I am beginning to suspect that it's pure projection coming from them. (And it pairs nicely with "but we don't have real capitalism...") The general lay criticisms of both libertarianism and communism are horribly flawed because for some unknown reason, people believe that the primary driving factor of harmony/prosperity among both systems is an appeal to inherent human altruism (which is often rebutted through the "human nature" argument). This is mostly false although a little less so for libertarianism, which relies on individual rational decision making and utility maximization, theorizing that actions at the individual level will result in rational, utility maximization in aggregate. The assumption is that this ultimately leads to a form of fairness, often expressed in the form of naturally arising social altruism. I think we all understand why this is flawed. Communism, on the other hand, theorizes that the elimination of "artificial" scarcity will defeat the forces of alienation and exploitation that oppose the socialist dynamic. Socialism seeks to achieve this goal through democratic allocation of means of production allocating scare resources in a more egalitarian fashion until the post scarcity stateless organization. This also does not rely on inherent altruism; the idea of more equitable distribution of scarce resources in a socialist society is yet another form of rational self interest, although the behavioral assumptions are made at the social level rather than the individual. The general format of modern leftist collectivism thought has strong roots in the advent of sociology and stronger ties with modern soft sciences (as well as basis in real anthropology) while right libertarianism is stuck in a poor interpretation of flawed Enlightenment Era liberalism, and has done its best (praxeology) to avoid empirical scrutiny.
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 16:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 09:07 |
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:That's usually the point where they start to argue that while socialist/communist organization clearly runs contrary to human nature, any superficially similar problems that would appear to occur in a libertarian society are, in fact, due to it either not being libertarian enough, or black people.* The thing that is super disturbing is that they don't really consider these things problems. At times they may claim to, but this is connected by the pretense of "such is the unavoidable price of freedom, unfortunately..." to the reality of "well, the immiseration of inferiors for the benefit of superiors is the actual point, duh."
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 17:07
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:The general lay criticisms of both libertarianism and communism are horribly flawed because for some unknown reason, people believe that the primary driving factor of harmony/prosperity among both systems is an appeal to inherent human altruism (which is often rebutted through the "human nature" argument). This is mostly false although a little less so for libertarianism, which relies on individual rational decision making and utility maximization, theorizing that actions at the individual level will result in rational, utility maximization in aggregate. The assumption is that this ultimately leads to a form of fairness, often expressed in the form of naturally arising social altruism. I think we all understand why this is flawed. For the record, I agree with most of this. I'm not communicating it well, but I wasn't really making a claim as to which argument is better or whether they are accurate. Just that there's this weird tendency for libertarians to unironically argue from the same ideologically purist humanity-denying ethos that they claim is the flaw in their opposite. What I disagree with it the idea that criticisms of libertarianism are based on the idea that "the primary driving factor of harmony/prosperity [in libertarianism] is an appeal to inherent human altruism." Maybe I don't know what you mean by "lay criticism," but I think by now most people are not fooled by the idea that anything but raw naked ambition to dominate by elites is the real motive, and understand that anything about how their volunteerism will be more beneficial to human welfare than state action is a pretense.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 17:14
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:For the record, I agree with most of this. I'm not communicating it well, but I wasn't really making a claim as to which argument is better or whether they are accurate. Just that there's this weird tendency for libertarians to unironically argue from the same ideologically purist humanity-denying ethos that they claim is the flaw in their opposite. I think we are largely in agreement, I just wanted to expand a bit on the old post/topic. Just so you know where I was coming from, when I say "lay criticism" of libertarianism, I mean the general easy to touch arguments predominately concerning things such as social welfare "replaced" by charity in libertarian society. One criticism is that this requires an inherent altruism to arise, whereas the libertarian ascribes it simply to rational self interest. All I am trying to point out is that inherent altruism is not a foundational concept of either ideology (despite critics often making clumsy appeals). Wasn't addressed directly to you, just speaks to the topic that you broached.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 17:30
|
|
|
I think the miscommunication basically started with saying it was an example of libertarians aping communists, when it's not really so much that as much as it is libertarians being huge loving hypocrites and having utterly worthless critiques of communism.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 17:35
|
|
|
archangelwar: noted.  WhiskeyWhiskers posted:I think the miscommunication basically started with saying it was an example of libertarians aping communists, when it's not really so much that as much as it is libertarians being huge loving hypocrites and having utterly worthless critiques of communism. Yeah, that's true. I was connecting it to other stuff I have talked about with these "odd parallels" but this isn't a similarity, it's projection. eta also: Sephyr posted:Libertarians do strike me as the "Bolsheviks in 1915" of our century. Already radicalized, gung-ho about a system they do not fully understand but full of fire and vim to bring it about, and just one bad national fuckup away from getting into a position to cause massive damage. This guy's speaking my language here. GunnerJ fucked around with this message at 08:02 on Dec 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 17:48
|
|
|
so does anyone have a pando subscription? this article is two months old but it's gratifying to see sheltered white boy randy floundering 
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 21:49
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:praxeology I've been confronted with this term before and based on what I read about libertarianism here at SA it's basically economic creationism, right? Stick to the scripture, deny all evidence otherwise, etc.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 00:32
|
|
|
There's a bit of an interesting subtle difference in that it is not about an explicit scriptural canon explanation, e.g. "the prophet Mises said free markets are the light," or whatever. They do a lot of that to be sure, but that isn't what praxeology is. Rather, it's about implicit unquestionable truths. If you start from certain "self-evident" axioms, you can work out by logical deduction from those axioms all sorts of undeniable necessary truths about the world (e.g. "free markets are the light") without reference to observation. Any observation that contradicts the truth you have worked out must clearly be missing something which will ultimately vindicate that truth because it's derived by correct logic from obvious starting points. ...which, yeah, ultimately leads to the same place as creationism's insistence that all supposed facts supporting the theory of evolution are actually just as likely to support creationism given the right interpretation and indeed must do so, because otherwise God's word would be contradicted. So I guess in a way "logic" is their God and the implications of that logic are their "revealed truths" of scripture. This can make the basic structure of what's going on difficult to discern because who doesn't like logical reasoning?
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 00:45
|
|
|
Laserjet 4P posted:I've been confronted with this term before and based on what I read about libertarianism here at SA it's basically economic creationism, right? Stick to the scripture, deny all evidence otherwise, etc. Creationists have at least been willing in the past to accept some evidence, like how even the dumbest ones accept dinosaurs exist now even if they claim Jesus rode them in the garden of eden. Praexology is like creationists to a new extreme.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 01:00
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:There's a bit of an interesting subtle difference in that it is not about an explicit scriptural canon explanation, e.g. "the prophet Mises said free markets are the light," or whatever. They do a lot of that to be sure, but that isn't what praxeology is. Rather, it's about implicit unquestionable truths. If you start from certain "self-evident" axioms, you can work out by logical deduction from those axioms all sorts of undeniable necessary truths about the world (e.g. "free markets are the light") without reference to observation. Any observation that contradicts the truth you have worked out must clearly be missing something which will ultimately vindicate that truth because it's derived by correct logic from obvious starting points. I think a big difference is that praxeology is based around axioms and underlying principles of "human action" (that was the title of the book in which Mises introduced the whole concept, IIRC). If praxeology fails, it's only because humans failed behave and act in a manner that upholds its claims. You don't modify the underlying principles or claims of it, you modify yourself and try to get others to modify themselves to make it all work. The tree with the golden apples is always just around the corner, and the fact that all the efforts to reach it thus far have ruined the climate, depleted the soil, and made it radioactive to boot is less a failing of the principles and more proof that people aren't praxing hard enough or correct enough. I think a prime difference between creationists and proponents of Austrian economics is that the depth of faith required to be a creationist can still make it easier to accept some new evidence (as fishmech mentioned). If the evidence is that dinosaurs existed, well fine, God made them and then unmade them somewhere down the line because He had a grand plan and they didn't fit into it. It's still inaccurate and specious as hell, but at least it's a step closer to scientific truth. Creationist views can also be spiraled out on a spectrum, from the hardcore fundamentalist view of everything being 6,000 years old and counting to an almost token view of God as being the creator of the universe n billions of years ago by setting off the big bang. Austrian economics, on the other hand, still seems pretty heavy on the absolute buy-in.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 02:35
|
|
|
So, is the latest Liberchat going on Youtube at some point? Because I quite liked the last one.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 03:05
|
|
|
It is but this one was way less organized and I don't feel as good about it so I keep putting it off. I'll definitely have it up before Christmas.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 03:30
|
|
|
Did it at least figure out Why We Should Care About Property Rights?
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 04:15
|
|
|
I think that praexology is designed to axiomatically be incapable of disproof, as it claims to work out from "humans act," meaning that any refutation of it involves a human engaging in an action, therefore vindicating the theory. Presumably only Buddha-mind or the involvement of a Klingon could defeat it. You are also not allowed to speak about it until you have read 3000 pages of literature and watched forty hours of lecturing on the matter, which you should not protest, as these materials are freely available at no financial charge, and time has no actual value.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 04:28
|
|
|
Slaan posted:Did it at least figure out Why We Should Care About Property Rights? No, but it certainly established Why We Shouldn't Care About Bitcoin.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 04:31
|
|
|
Slaan posted:Did it at least figure out Why We Should Care About Property Rights? no but i said dog dick coffee table a couple of times
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 04:33
|
|
|
Nessus posted:I think that praexology is designed to axiomatically be incapable of disproof, as it claims to work out from "humans act," meaning that any refutation of it involves a human engaging in an action, therefore vindicating the theory. Presumably only Buddha-mind or the involvement of a Klingon could defeat it. I think you might be thinking of argumentation ethics. But if that is praexology, it's dumber than I thought. All sorts of claims can be disproved without disproving their premises if the argument connecting premises to claims is flawed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 04:34
|
|
|
Slaan posted:Did it at least figure out Why We Should Care About Property Rights? Because Jrod will hurt us if you don't  .
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 04:34
|
|
|
DrProsek posted:Because Jrod will hurt us if you don't I doubt it, he still hasn't fought Dickeye afaik.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 04:36
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:I think you might be thinking of argumentation ethics. But if that is praexology, it's dumber than I thought. All sorts of claims can be disproved without disproving their premises if the argument connecting premises to claims is flawed. No, I think you're right that the guy you're responding to is thinking of argumentation ethics. Praexology as used in Human Action is dumb because it's claims are contradictory. People do what they want, therefore if we let people do what they want everyone will get what they want. What do you mean they want to set up a system of regulations to help guide behavior? That's not human action, that's government. Unless it's not, then it's okay.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 04:42
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:I doubt it, he still hasn't fought Dickeye afaik. he has yet to cry "stop breaking the NAP"
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 04:47
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:It is but this one was way less organized and I don't feel as good about it so I keep putting it off. I'll definitely have it up before Christmas. I still have no idea what was causing the mic issues on my end and got frustrated enough to stop listening while everyone was still trying to come up with a concise definition of what bitcoin actually is (other than just a pack of stupid bullshit).
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 04:50
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:no but i said dog dick coffee table a couple of times aw poo poo you guys talked about dog dick coffee table guy? did you also talk about that guy who claimed to be lawyer after he found some law books in a dumpster? man I really wanted to be at this one but just didn't have the time, bitcoin just generates so much weird and funny stuff
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 07:24
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:aw poo poo you guys talked about dog dick coffee table guy? The bitcoin thread mentioned recently that it is actually a ring tail dick coffee table. If that makes it better somehow.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 07:48
|
|
|
the dog dick coffee table that you imagine in your head is always more awesome than the ring tail dick coffee table that you meet in real life
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 10:07
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:aw poo poo you guys talked about dog dick coffee table guy? We didn't talk about that lawyer, but we did get into a number of other Bitcoin personalities new and old. Bruce, Atlas, and CARL MARK FORCE IV all got mentioned. It was the nerdiest two hours of talking in my life, but it was great fun.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 13:26
|
|
|
Anticheese posted:We didn't talk about that lawyer, but we did get into a number of other Bitcoin personalities new and old. Bruce, Atlas, and CARL MARK FORCE IV all got mentioned. Thai rentboy Bruce, or other Bruce?
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 14:44
|
|
|
Twerkteam Pizza posted:Psychology and Sociology show us that I think it's worth reminding people that Marxism is based on human nature. You can't make sweeping predictions about society if the actors involved have free and possibly changeable wills. Marx founds his theories on fundamental and unchangeable assumptions about the combination of human nature with capital and how that combination will necessarily play out. There is no black and white as to whether you believe in human nature or not. Even the people who try and vocally reject the term can't actually function in the world without an internal model for human nature and behavior. Instead the question when evaluating ideology is how accurate its model of human nature is. Among the obvious flaws in libertarianism is their barren model of human nature and the faulty way they arrive at it - essentially post-hoc. They know what they want society to look like in the end and declare, with zero introspection or curiosity, that human nature is compatible with this society (and only compatible with this society). By contrast modern liberal capitalist states are full of complexity and contradictions that reflect how they've actually been tailored to the complex and contradictory nature of their citizens.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 15:33
|
|
human nature
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:Thai rentboy Bruce, or other Bruce? Both of them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 15:48
|
|
|
Thing is, human nature in most contexts is used as an objection that because people have free will they are completely unpredictable, which is absurd. I don't reject human nature, I just don't think it's an absurd impossible-to-predict phenomenon.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 16:02
|
|
|
Caros posted:The bitcoin thread mentioned recently that it is actually a ring tail dick coffee table. If that makes it better somehow. they mentioend it after i brought it up QuarkJets posted:did you also talk about that guy who claimed to be lawyer after he found some law books in a dumpster? was that logansryche? we spent like twenty minutes on him and trying to remember what his mutant math was called
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 16:12
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:was that logansryche? we spent like twenty minutes on him and trying to remember what his mutant math was called Logansryche is the straight up mentally challenged guy who once tried to run a site with gift cards sold for a "20% fee" which was somehow always $2 no matter the starting price. As far as actual weird math, are you sure you aren't thinking of luke-jr and how he insists on using the "tonal" (modified hexadecimal) number system that this one weird guy in the mid 1800s invented?
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 17:01
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Logansryche is the straight up mentally challenged guy who once tried to run a site with gift cards sold for a "20% fee" which was somehow always $2 no matter the starting price. yeah we conflated the two of them, whoooooops logansryche is from my neck of upstate, like literally the next town over from me, and i always wonder if i've run into him in some of my adventures with the sketchier, more uneducated part of the state
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 17:29
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Logansryche is the straight up mentally challenged guy who once tried to run a site with gift cards sold for a "20% fee" which was somehow always $2 no matter the starting price. Literally The Worst posted:yeah we conflated the two of them, whoooooops This reminds me of one of the original bitcoin threads in GBS where I made a few posts about Atlas and logansryche starring in a sitcom and getting into all kinds of wacky bitcoin adventures. None of the networks have done anything with the concept yet, but I think it's still a money idea 
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 17:57
|
|
|
Speaking of bitcoin personalities, does anyone know whatever happened to Dank? I sorta figured he ended up ODing or flying away with alien math wizards or whatever, but never did find out for sure.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 18:30
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:Speaking of bitcoin personalities, does anyone know whatever happened to Dank? I sorta figured he ended up ODing or flying away with alien math wizards or whatever, but never did find out for sure. He still lives with his parents and almost went to jail.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 18:32
|
|
|
RZApublican posted:a money idea much like bitcoin itself
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 18:32
|
|
|
RZApublican posted:This reminds me of one of the original bitcoin threads in GBS where I made a few posts about Atlas and logansryche starring in a sitcom and getting into all kinds of wacky bitcoin adventures. None of the networks have done anything with the concept yet, but I think it's still a money idea Did you put it in the wiki?
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 19:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 09:07 |
|
|
mojo1701a posted:Did you put it in the wiki? I considered posting about starting a gofundme to crowdsource a bounty for someone else to put it in the wiki, does that count?
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 19:28
|
|