|
I think the most notable aspect of this thread has been Jrod and Caros being perfect models of evangelism. Caros has been a great model for how to try to convert someone to your belief system while Jrod has steadfastly shown everyone exactly what not to do.
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 13:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 15:15 |
|
|
Goon Danton posted:Nozick's Anarchy, State, and Utopia is essentially an attempt to show how a minimal state could arise out of the state of nature via market forces. I thought that was an attempt to get Rawls-sempai to notice him.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 13:37
|
|
|
My favourite episode of Jrod was the one where he claimed that war was not possible without fiat currency. We will never see his like again.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 15:53
|
|
|
Can someone give me the baby spoon explanation of how Praxeology works? As far as I can understand it, it's the argument that: A) People consciously undertake actions to achieve specific goals B) Any assertion that follows from A) is fundamentally and axiomatically true and cannot be falsified by studies or history but neither the quote in the OP nor the rambling wall of nonsense I found on Mises.org explains how B) follows from A). I cannot conceive of a logical argument that fits within this framework. The closest thing I could find to an example of a praxeological argument was a claim on mises.org that "the first unit of a good will be allocated to its most valuable use, the next unit to the next most valuable, and so on" which doesn't strike me as universally true, particularly insightful, or something that logically follows from the idea that people do things with specific goals in mind. I've read far more words about this than I probably ought to, and I still have no idea what the hell it is.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 16:26
|
|
|
Kajeesus posted:Can someone give me the baby spoon explanation of how Praxeology works? As far as I can understand it, it's the argument that: Praxeology means that the things von Mises says are correct by definition and if you try to argue against them you're a smally doo-doo head.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 16:29
|
|
|
If you start from the premise that whatever someone would do if left to their own devices is by definition rational, and that the most rational distribution of resources is by definition the most efficient, then it follows that the most efficient government is the one that leaves everyone to their own devices. That this argument trades on an equivocation over the word 'rational' never seems to bother them.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 16:30
|
|
|
Kajeesus posted:Can someone give me the baby spoon explanation of how Praxeology works? As far as I can understand it, it's the argument that: It assumes that people are perfectly rational and perfectly in control at all times, and that if you observe a different result, it's not because people are irrational, it's because you didn't understand what their goal was. It has no room for the notion that people might want one thing and do another thing.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 16:53
|
|
|
Praxeology works like this: 1. we can never be sure about anything ever 2. now let me talk to you about why I don't want to pay taxes and negroes are inferior
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 17:09
|
|
|
Kajeesus posted:Can someone give me the baby spoon explanation of how Praxeology works? As far as I can understand it, it's the argument that: Basically, they assert (A) axiomatically, so anything that logically follows from it must be true if (A) is true. And conversely, if you dispute any of their other ideas, it means you disagree with the idea that humans act. Of course, another big part of von Mises' logic is "if two people make a voluntary agreement or transaction, that agreement or transaction must increase Utility for both parties, or they wouldn't have agreed to it." Therefore any attempt to regulate what people are allowed to agree to is going to interfere with utility increasing, and is therefore immoral. The whole model is rooted in utilitarianism, despite all of JRod's attempts to throw the word around like a slur, because Ludwig von Mises really wanted to be John Stuart Mill. Cerebral Bore posted:I thought that was an attempt to get Rawls-sempai to notice him. Oh, sure. It was his general all-purpose defense of libertarianism and attack on utilitarianism and Rawls' Theory of Justice. But his attempts to argue with Rawls amount to "if we start with a just arrangement of goods, and then everyone makes voluntary transactions, the end result must also be just." Regardless of whether that logic makes any sense, when you're literally starting from the premise of a Just World, it's sort of hard to take your argument seriously.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 17:39
|
|
|
Praxeology is a bit like dialectics. If you start speaking jibberish, no one can refute you.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 17:54
|
|
|
bokkibear posted:My favourite episode of Jrod was the one where he claimed that war was not possible without fiat currency. Was it fiat currency or existence of states? Probably both, knowing him.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 18:05
|
|
|
Fiat currency or taxation. War can't be profitable on its own. That was his position.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 18:10
|
|
|
Which presumably also means that trade cannot be profitable on its own either.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 18:38
|
|
|
So it's basically Objectivism's rational actor, dressed up in a bunch of pretentious nonsense? That's a bit disappointing, but I guess it's unsurprising given the source.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 18:54
|
|
|
Here, I'll sum up praxeology 1) Libertarians are always right about everything, forever. 2) Facts, science, and math cannot disprove libertarianism.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 19:01
|
|
|
Goon Danton posted:Basically, they assert (A) axiomatically, so anything that logically follows from it must be true if (A) is true. And conversely, if you dispute any of their other ideas, it means you disagree with the idea that humans act. In case there's still any need for a clear and precise explanation for why this is insane, it's worth mentioning that the more conventional form of logic as practiced by non-libertarians will ordinarily require two basic assumptions before something can "follow" from them.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 19:12
|
|
|
Woozy posted:In case there's still any need for a clear and precise explanation for why this is insane, it's worth mentioning that the more conventional form of logic as practiced by non-libertarians will ordinarily require two basic assumptions before something can "follow" from them. Which is the root of the problem. When libertarians argue "humans act, therefore..." they always necessarily smuggle in some additional, unstated assumption(s). Stating these assumptions would completely dismantle their argument, so they refuse to ever do so and instead call it "praxeology" as if they invented the idea of using logical deduction to achieve knowledge. Then any further inquiry is stymied by switching the meanings of words and "do you dispute that humans act?"
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 19:51
|
|
|
Goon Danton posted:Fiat currency or taxation. War can't be profitable on its own. That was his position. It's the one he backed up to and then never responded to any further inquiries about, at any rate.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 19:52
|
|
|
Yeah the biggest implicit assumption is that humans always act logically, which, well, is patently untrue.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 19:55
|
|
|
When I was an ancap, I created this theory that all human action is profitable. All of it. If I have a gun to my head, and am told "Your money or your life," the choice I make is by definition the best choice for me given the circumstances, because I made it. Force is bad because it interferes with this calculation, but the calculation still remains true. Obviously, this was crazy.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 20:19
|
|
|
ALERT: Your account has been flagged as a risk for chargeback fraud. Per our contract, you will now be dropped off butt naked at the boundary of the DRO.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 21:22
|
|
|
The big, glaring issue with praxeology is that it specifically rejects empiricism, supposedly because they object to logical positivism, but more likely because everything they propose falls apart if you insist on evidence. It would be in the dustbin of history where it belongs if not for some very determined libertarians and the fact that it's convenient for some powerful people. The "humans act" thing is even more bizarre, because if you take the words at face value it means almost nothing, and if you look at what Mises & co. actually meant, they seem to be so obsessed with reducing everything down to individuals that it's basically impossible for them to address macroeconomics at all.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 21:38
|
|
|
Goon Danton posted:Fiat currency or taxation. War can't be profitable on its own. That was his position. No, he started saying that it required fiat currency and then quickly, quickly backpedaled.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 23:02
|
|
|
Guilty Spork posted:The big, glaring issue with praxeology is that it specifically rejects empiricism, supposedly because they object to logical positivism, but more likely because everything they propose falls apart if you insist on evidence. It would be in the dustbin of history where it belongs if not for some very determined libertarians and the fact that it's convenient for some powerful people. To be honest I think you need to look at where the money has been coming from for these lolbertarian think tanks to do their thing; they want everything to be totally, completely individual so you can't blame systemic problems for the difficulties of individuals. Well I'm sorry Jack, but if you didn't want to die in the coal mines at 23 you should have tried harder in the dismally funded company school that forced you to work to attend it.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 23:14
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I really hope no one is really going to question me on the widely known and accepted link between fiat money and State warfare? For most of recorded history, empires were able to finance their bloodshed through some form of inflation. Really the whole thing is amazing but this was definitely my favourite bit.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 23:18
|
|
|
Christ CSPANS live view is so confusing why not just put a button that says "LIVE". Ugh I wanna watch the Crazies.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 23:30
|
|
|
Goon Danton posted:Nozick's Anarchy, State, and Utopia is essentially an attempt to show how a minimal state could arise out of the state of nature via market forces. Is this the libertarian version of Marx's gradual dissolution of the state?
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 23:34
|
|
|
The obvious conflict between utilitarianism and praxeology leads a few libertarians to recast it in deontological terms. i.e., principles before people. The market is by definition moral, regardless of its outcomes. In my experience, these people are full-blown anarcho-capitalists. While they're more honest, I find them ten times as infuriating as any Jrod, because if, like me, you approach everything as a consequentialist but aren't a philosopher or any good at critical analysis, you can get walled endlessly by them going "Human suffering? lol, that's irrelevant". Mercifully, the only deontological ancaps I can think of off the top of my head are Clarkhat (a man who salivates for the death of millions and was booted from the highly-regarded left-libertarian law blog Popehat after he emerged from the alt-right cocoon and spread his beautiful neoreactionary wings), Hans-Hermann Hoppe (a man who's made his career saying out loud the problematic parts of libertarianism that every other libertarian tiptoes around and proclaiming them as benefits) and of course Murray Rothbard, the guy who believed parents had the right to kill their children. I can't speak for Rothbard, but note that the first two are remarkable for how they embrace meanspiritedness. To nobody's surprise, you gotta be one nasty motherfucker to dismiss living, breathing human beings as unimportant. They're thankfully quite rare. Most libertarians approach problems as consequentialists, even if they don't realize it and wouldn't identify themselves as such. It's what makes it possible for them to convert to conventional liberalism/leftism. If your average libertarian ranges from naive to thunderously dense, the deo-ancap is proudly apathetic—they've chosen to not give a poo poo and they honestly think it makes them better people. Edit: Fixed because I apparently said Mises when I meant Rothbard. Curvature of Earth fucked around with this message at 00:56 on May 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 23:50
|
|
|
A big problem with ancaps and extreme lolberts is that they just don't understand that if you want to have a truly free market and a true meritocracy you need to end dynastic wealth and forcibly level the playing field. They talk a good freedom game but utterly fail to realize how completely not free a truly libertarian society would be. A lot of their beliefs start from "this money is mine and I can spend it however I want" and go out from there. They just kind of ignore the disastrous effects that billionaires are having on the world right now and handwave it away with "well hey it's their money they can do what they want with it. It would be wrong to take it away from them" while the billionaires use their money to rig the game in their favor. Which is where you really see the problems; they'll say the bribery, lobbying, and corruption going on right now are proof that government is bad because if there is no government there are no politicians to bribe!  edit: The corporate piracy going on right now comes to mind; a stupidly rich guy or his business buys a company, jacks its value up in the short term, borrows money or sells stock or whatever, then pillages the company into the dirt and leaves somebody else with that bill. Company implodes and all the workers are hosed. All lolberts say is "it's their own fault for choosing to work there" because, as we all know, workers are clairvoyant and know when that's going to happen.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 23:58
|
|
|
Curvature of Earth posted:The obvious conflict between utilitarianism and praxeology leads a few libertarians to recast it in deontological terms. i.e., principles before people. The market is by definition moral, regardless of its outcomes. In my experience, these people are full-blown anarcho-capitalists. Surely the most obvious counter to that is if human suffering is irrelevant then what is relevant and why? What is the point in serving a principle if it manifestly does no good?
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 00:04
|
|
|
Curvature of Earth posted:and of course Mises, the guy who believed parents had the right to kill their children. I thought that was Rothbard, or did Mises also favor child starvation/slavery? The Ethics of Liberty by Murray Rothbard posted:...but also that the parent should not have a legal obligation to feed, clothe, or educate his children, since such obligations would entail positive acts coerced upon the parent and depriving the parent of his rights. The parent therefore may not murder or mutilate his child, and the law properly outlaws a parent from doing so. But the parent should have the legal right not to feed the child, i.e., to allow it to die. The Ethics of Liberty by Murray Rothbard posted:Now if a parent may own his child (within the framework of non-aggression and runaway-freedom), then he may also transfer that ownership to someone else. He may give the child out for adoption, or he may sell the rights to the child in a voluntary contract. In short, we must face the fact that the purely free society will have a flourishing free market in children. Superficially, this sounds monstrous and inhuman. But closer thought will reveal the superior humanism of such a market. For we must realize that there is a market for children now, but that since the government prohibits sale of children at a price, the parents may now only give their children away to a licensed adoption agency free of charge. This means that we now indeed have a child-market, but that the government enforces a maximum price control of zero, and restricts the market to a few privileged and therefore monopolistic agencies. The result has been a typical market where the price of the commodity is held by government far below the free-market price: an enormous “shortage” of the good. The demand for babies and children is usually far greater than the supply, and hence we see daily tragedies of adults denied the joys of adopting children by prying and tyrannical adoption agencies. In fact, we find a large unsatisfied demand by adults and couples for children, along with a large number of surplus and unwanted babies neglected or maltreated by their parents. Allowing a free market in children would eliminate this imbalance, and would allow for an allocation of babies and children awayfrom parents who dislike or do not care for their children, and toward foster parents who deeply desire such children. Everyone involved: the natural parents, the children, and the foster parents purchasing the children, would be better off in this sort of society.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 00:44
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Surely the most obvious counter to that is if human suffering is irrelevant then what is relevant and why? Let's ask some libertarians!  Not only that, let's present them with the biggest reductio ad absurdum imaginable. An asteroid is going to hit the earth. Can you tax the residents of earth in order to fund a project to divert or destroy it? Sarah Volokh says yes-no-maybe-so: It's not like the asteroid is violating my rights posted:it’s not obvious to me that the Earth being hit by an asteroid (or, say, someone being hit by lightning or a falling tree) violates anyone’s rights; if that’s so, then I’m not sure I can justify preventing it through taxation. To be fair, Volokh does begrudgingly admit that taxes might be okay in this one instance, but only to prevent an even bigger case of rights violations caused by a panicking, riotous public. Volokh also notes that if the public is kept ignorant so they don't riot, it's all good and you still can't tax people. Surely Mises.com would only publish a reasonable take on this? Stopping an asteroid is exactly like harvesting random people's organs posted:...it is immoral to kill a random person, even if by doing so you could harness his organs and prevent three other people from dying. To do so would be to introduce more injustice into the world. It's not a violation of someone's rights when he dies from heart disease, but it is a violation of someone's rights if we kill somebody to take his healthy heart and transplant it into somebody else.  Bonus content from that same post: quote:Does [nonlibertarian blogger] DeLong... think people have any spheres of autonomy, protecting them absolutely from government action? Going the other way, are there any hard limits on what the government can do to people — or does it all boil down to a utilitarian assessment of what promotes the greatest good? If the government can stop asteroids, what's to stop them from taking ALL YER FREEDOMS?! Curvature of Earth fucked around with this message at 00:52 on May 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 00:49
|
|
|
Sebadoh Gigante posted:I thought that was Rothbard, or did Mises also favor child starvation/slavery? Sorry about that, I said Mises when I meant Rothbard.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 00:51
|
|
|
So how do they respond to the notion that perhaps if everyone is literally dead of asteroid, rights don't really matter?
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 00:54
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:So how do they respond to the notion that perhaps if everyone is literally dead of asteroid, rights don't really matter? Perfect state of Libertarianism. No people means no chance of violating the NAP.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 01:00
|
|
|
Yeah, if you buy into the negative/positive rights framework then everyone being dead is just as good as a 'perfect' libertarian society; in either case, nobody is getting coerced.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 01:05
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:if you want to have a truly free market and a true meritocracy you need to end dynastic wealth and forcibly level the playing field. But even doing that, what does it accomplish? In a generation you'll have billionaires again. Even today, there are plenty inheritors like the Walton kids, but most billionaires are self-made. And in America, the 1860s, 1920s–30s, and 1960s–80s destroyed untold amounts of familial wealth. It's hard enough for family offices to keep the kids of rich parents from pissing away the family's wealth, so as long as too many idiots don't unite to destroy the inheritance tax, I think we'll be okay in the long term, especially if wealth destruction keeps occurring naturally every few decades.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 01:10
|
|
|
It's like David Benatar hit his head and went completely retarded.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 01:10
|
|
|
Triglav posted:But even doing that, what does it accomplish? In a generation you'll have billionaires again. Even today, there are plenty inheritors like the Walton kids, but most billionaires are self-made. Modern wealth management makes it extremely difficult for an heir to waste their inheritance by themselves. Most wealthy people lock their wealth in a trust fund or some other elaborate technically-separate legal entity. It minimizes their personal taxes because their investment income technically isn't "theirs"—its the trust's. This isn't just for tax avoidance, it's also for wealth preservation, since you can't directly piss away your inheritance. At worst, you can convince the trustees to give you more money than you should be getting, at best, the trust is airtight and you have to make do your meager $10 million a year. I'm actually friends with a trust fund kid. His dad "lost" his inheritance because his aunt was a junkie, so the trustees raided his dad's share while trying to support her awful, self-destructive lifestyle. Which is why, at 21, my friend inherited a trust of "only" $800,000. He receives a fixed 3% annual distribution regardless of how much money is in it. (Which is about $2000 a month, if you don't feel like doing the math). That's how the trust is set up; it's not actually possible for him to spend it all down without permission from the trustees. Curvature of Earth fucked around with this message at 03:34 on May 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 01:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 15:15 |
|
|
Let's just go ahead and ignore that social mobility is declining in America, minimum wage is enough to afford an apartment literally nowhere, and the traditional way out (you know, college) has become either prohibitively expensive or attached to crippling debt. Generally speaking billionaires are not "self-made." Chances are they were from at least upper middle class families. Often their parents were rich; look at dudes like Trump that got started with a measly $1,000,000 or Bill Gates who could afford to have computers to play with when computers were still really expensive. There is also a massive advantage gained from "I can live with my parents for free indefinitely" that people seem to forget about. It gives you more time to develop skills, chase opportunities, and develop connections. A poor kid that starts working at 15 or 16 is probably expected to support themselves by 18 which makes it far more difficult to go to college. That kid also needs to grab whatever jobs they can, which are probably awful.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 01:32
|
|