|
VitalSigns posted:You're giving Libertarianism way too much credit here by likening it to scriptures that condemn the rich and command us to love our neighbor. Now you're just spoiling my fun.I'm just running with what Brandor gave me.
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 17:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 02:31 |
|
|
BrandorKP posted:For the Kochs specifically, it's the running of their business. They are unarguably successful at that. How can I say this? They have facilities in cites (and in the industries) that were just utterly decimated by the changes that occurred in American industry, they weathered those changes, hell even thrived, as competitors failed around them. You are incredibly fuckin' stupid. The Kochs' father made their fortune. It only takes a pulse and basic common sense to turn a big fortune into an enormous one. Did you even know that the Kochs didn't use praxeology to make a fortune from nothing? You waste.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 17:46
|
|
|
Praxeology was actually very useful to them in convincing themselves and others that they earned the money and the opportunities daddy gave them. Also see: Mitt Romney. So I'll agree with Brandor here that praxeology is not just navel-gazing but is actually extremely useful in the real world for convincing terrible people to believe obvious lies.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 17:48
|
|
|
Karia posted:Engineering even ignores theoretically correct models (for example, the Gerber parabola for mechanical fatigue life) if it more accurately represents the imperfect, empirical data (we use a straight line instead, it's safer.) Sure, those errors are caused by material defects, deviations in loading, part inaccuracy, and plain random happenstance, not by any problems with the theory. But when theory collides with the real world, the real world wins, and we accept that into our models and move on. True, because sometimes systems ignore the theoretically correct models when testing happens. Sometimes you even have to toss your entire model because the tested system in no way matched up with your models. This happens a lot in the nuclear world, actually. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 17:52 on Dec 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 17:48
|
|
|
Brandor, the difference between Libertarianism and Engineering models is summed up by a concept thousands of years old that is the only solid basis on which to understand anything in the real world; the scientific method. Engineering models must respond to observed results and refine accordingly; conceptual models like Libertarianism instead omit observed results that do not fit their assumptions. Whatever similarities exist beyond that, this fundamental difference is what makes one applicable and useful and the other totally worthless for real world application. The only point you can be making is that some people take the models without also applying the scientific method; i. e. applying the model's equations to situations they are not calibrated for. This, while very much a problem, is a failure of understanding of the person applying the model, not the model itself; it's what happens when deontological thinking is used in place of empirical observation. And as you said, it hurts/kills people. All you are proving is the fundamental superiority of scientific observation in creating predictive models. Ron Paul Atreides fucked around with this message at 17:58 on Dec 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 17:56
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Praxeology was actually very useful to them in convincing themselves and others that they earned the money and the opportunities daddy gave them. Also see: Mitt Romney. That's the whole point. All models are false, but some are useful. And utility is subjective, not objective. Libertarianism is a constructed model that serves its true intended purpose, i.e., it provides some degree of psychological satisfaction or comfort to its adherents. You're acting as if there's a single objective metric for determining whether a model is worthwhile or not, but even within the sciences this doesn't hold.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 18:34
|
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:You're acting as if there's a single objective metric for determining whether a model is worthwhile or not, but even within the sciences this doesn't hold. There is: Testing and validation or rejection You reject models that don't hold up to tests, or you change your model to fit the newly discovered figures. This is why publishing negative data is just as important as publishing positive data. Guess what Libertarians don't do?
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 18:35
|
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:it provides some degree of psychological satisfaction or comfort to its adherents. While this may be one of the side effects of engineering models, it's not the only one. This is like comparing penicillin to a sugar pill and saying "yeah but just TAKING the pill has a positive effect!" Technically correct: the best kind of correct.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 18:40
|
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:That's the whole point. All models are false, but some are useful. And utility is subjective, not objective. Libertarianism is a constructed model that serves its true intended purpose, i.e., it provides some degree of psychological satisfaction or comfort to its adherents. I agree with your portrayal. But Libertarians do not. Praxeology's model claims it can derive accurate conclusions about economics and policy a priori, and that it has useful applications to economic policies that will increase peace and prosperity.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 18:44
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:There is: Testing and validation or rejection You're thinking of science as describing reality, and not an nth-order approximation of reality. If the nth-order approximation gets very good results, and the n+1th-order approximation gets even better results but needlessly complicates things from a practical standpoint, which is the superior model? If you claim either one you're really gonna have to back it up. The only real metric you can apply is subjective utility.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 18:44
|
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:You're thinking of science as describing reality, and not an nth-order approximation of reality. If the nth-order approximation gets very good results, and the n+1th-order approximation gets even better results but needlessly complicates things from a practical standpoint, which is the superior model? If you claim either one you're really gonna have to back it up. The only real metric you can apply is subjective utility. This has no connection to libertarian praxeology, which has no results whatsoever, and does not approximate anything so much as a fever dream.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 18:46
|
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:You're thinking of science as describing reality, and not an nth-order approximation of reality. If the nth-order approximation gets very good results, and the n+1th-order approximation gets even better results but needlessly complicates things from a practical standpoint, which is the superior model? If you claim either one you're really gonna have to back it up. The only real metric you can apply is subjective utility. I mean okay, but if our utility function includes "usefully describes reality" then while obviously how far to carry our polynomial (or whatever base function) expansion to make it the most useful (time/effort vs error) is going to depend on our specific situation, praxeology is right out unless we make "makes me feel warm like mommy's kisses" our utility function, which according to my utility function is a bad metric to use to set policy. Edit: wait, does your whole argument boil down to "but what if we want everything to burn, then praxeology looks pretty good, ehhhh ehhhhhhhh?"
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 18:52
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Christian theology usually universalizes too. It takes the life and story of Jesus and makes it applicable to everything, even to reality itself. I do acknowledge that, yes, this might be a problem too. It's really hard to believe this when you make absolutely no effort to correct for this problem, and after so long it's entirely reasonable to say that this is an outright lie on your part. Which is, ironically, exactly what the Kochs do when they talk about praxeology.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 19:41
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I agree with your portrayal. But Libertarians do not. Praxeology's model claims it can derive accurate conclusions about economics and policy a priori, and that it has useful applications to economic policies that will increase peace and prosperity. yeah I think this is the point of contention Commie and I have; whatever uses praxeology has in soothing the psyches of predatory capitalists, it's not what it claims as it's central purpose.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 22:05
|
|
|
I'm honestly surprised people who aren't (or at least I don't think they are) paid hacks from think tanks or legislators, are actually trying to argue that right-wing economic policies are supposed to be beneficial to poor people. Jon Chait had a good article a little while back explaining the main difference between how liberals and conservatives view economics. Liberals want to help the poor, and want to provide jobs for the populace, and don't really care what method you use to achieve such things as long as you achieve them. As such, they generally support Keyenesian policies, with a good deal of redistributive taxes, but they only do so as a means to an end, and would support supply side doctrine if it achieved the same results. Conservatives on the other hand, approach things from the exact reverse. Their main goal is to make taxes as low as possible on the wealthy and shrink government, but they try and claim that they only support such policies because it will make the lives of everyone better. But conservatives don't give a drat about actual results. Liberals will generally accept reevaluating policies if they wind up exacerbating things, but for conservatives, taxes and regulations need to be cut regardless of any impact, positive or negative. Chait explained it in a much better way but you get the idea.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 22:45
|
|
|
Yeah, more "left" economics are concerned with with results and getting a more fair outcome, while conservatives are much more concerned with the process being "fair" and don't give a poo poo about the results. If their idea of a fair system results in massive poverty and inequality then that's what the market wills, that's the "natural" state of things and that's everyone getting what they deserve. Inequality is purely the result of superior and inferior people and superior people should not be robbed to give hand outs to the inferior. You can give them all the proof of the results of their system and it doesn't matter because the results don't matter, the results are automatically good because they came from a fair system. On the flip side absolutely can't understand more left economics because how could any society, no matter the outcome live with its self knowing its supported by theft and government oppression? They'd see even a working socialist utopia as horrible because to them it's all fake, meaningless, it's supported by tax theft and government slavery. No outcome, no paradise is worth giving up what they see as "liberty".
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 00:30
|
|
|
The Mutato posted:Because people want a DRO that does investigate that. People want to live in a nice society that doesn't have homeless people being slaughtered and cats being tortured in back alleys. You clearly place some value on this type of society, since you are so averse to it being created, and if you value something you are willing to pay for it. See, this is what I find so unrealistic about Libertarianism. It assumes that all these terrible things that DROs will do will be plastered right on their front page. They probably would imagine the flyers for a DRO that does not investigate animal torture: "Do you hate animals? Then our DRO is for you! Torture all the animals you want! Hey, you can even murder people and take their houses and our courts will rule against their families, while you sit in court, drinking the blood of their beloved dog, Sparky, out of a chalice made from the bones of the other dogs you have drunk the blood of!" Chances are, this poo poo will be buried. It will be hard for the average person to find out about it, because it just doesn't impact the average person that much. Think about it. I'm against a lot of terrible things, but when it comes to my day to day life, it doesn't impact me very directly. So why would I buy a DRO because of their policy on animal torture. Seriously, sometimes the Libertarian society sounds like what an autistic adult male with the maturity of a five-year-old would envision as a reasonable vision for the world. It only works if everybody is coldly rational and unceasingly honest. The minute deceit enters the picture... we're all hosed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 02:33
|
|
|
Cemetry Gator posted:See, this is what I find so unrealistic about Libertarianism. Well DRO's are basically just insurance organizations with guns, so its honestly not surprising when you look at how insurance works now. Oh yeah, you're totally covered... except if you get sick.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 02:39
|
|
|
Cemetry Gator posted:Seriously, sometimes the Libertarian society sounds like what an autistic adult male with the maturity of a five-year-old would envision as a reasonable vision for the world. It only works if everybody is coldly rational and unceasingly honest. The minute deceit enters the picture... 
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 02:41
|
|
|
Reminder that this is essentially what people like Jrodefeld expect a DRO to work like in practice: http://www.victorycities.com/
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 02:44
|
|
|
Cemetry Gator posted:
Which is funny cause don't these same people argue against things like welfare programs precisely because they feel people cannot be trusted and will always try to game the system?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 03:26
|
|
|
Cemetry Gator posted:Seriously, sometimes the Libertarian society sounds like what an autistic adult male with the maturity of a five-year-old would envision as a reasonable vision for the world. Libertarian principles and ideation are always relevant at the borders of society, where new technologies make it possible to evade or ignore long-established customs (such as "please report your income and pay taxes on it" or "please don't hire hitmen to kill your business rivals"). Bitcoin has shown us that, instead of developing trust networks and exchanging useful goods and services, unregulated captains-of-industry will spend most of their time trying to cheat each other. Eripsa's threads on network theory and self-organized voluntary-participation economies often include brutally honest elucidation of Libertarian principles -- such as "What control measure exist to prevent someone from flooding the Internet with child porn?" Answer: "None whatsoever. We hope that people will avoid consuming the offensive material, and they'll probably attempt to downvote the provider (although he can always setup another sockpuppet account and keep spamming). The fact that the system allows misuse should not be considered a bug. Let ------------- Of course, anyone who actually tries to instigate a Libertarian revolution - ignoring the immense cost in human suffering - should be treated in the same way as a mad scientist who offered to replace all of your DNA with organometallic polymer. It certainly sounds neat. It might fulfill all of the old requirements while adding some cool new features. But the risk is enormous and there's no compelling reason to make the attempt.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 04:01
|
|
|
GulMadred posted:I actually see some merit in it as a thought exercise. "Could we recreate useful and popular elements of human society in the absence of a state?" is sort of like how exobiologists once asked "Could we setup a lifeform capable of nutrition and self-replication without nucleic acids?" The latter question seems like speculative and untestable nonsense, but then forty years later it turns out to be possibly relevant to evolution (the Protein Interaction World hypothesis). To be fair though, what people like Jrodefeld and Molyneux do really isn't a thought exercise. They've reached a conclusion that we can create a better society without a state, and they're just filling in the blanks along the way, hoping that it all adds up. That's where you get some of these ridiculous claims, because he's not willing to consider that the avenue their going down just won't work. Also, I have this strange to urge to tell you that there are four lights. I don't know why. But there are four lights.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 04:23
|
|
|
Cemetry Gator posted:To be fair though, what people like Jrodefeld and Molyneux do really isn't a thought exercise. They've reached a conclusion that we can create a better society without a state, and they're just filling in the blanks along the way, hoping that it all adds up. That's where you get some of these ridiculous claims, because he's not willing to consider that the avenue their going down just won't work. Or they just aren't willing to consider that even when such a "blank slate" existed, if it ever did, human civilization quickly found how efficient and better it was to group together in some kind of state. Libertarianism ignores the sweep of history, the development of the various kinds of governments, and power structures and how they each contributed, at times, to some kind of progress or held some chaos back. Yes, democracy/socialism/republics may not be the perfect form of government, but if living without a government was so wonderful, people would be buying plane tickets to... Somalia? Remote stretches of Antarctica? And they would be happy. But no one does that. As an aside, I am fascinated by libertarians. I have friends and many young people who I speak with who claim to be libertarians, but of course, they explain it as a sort of philosophy of co-existence - "as long as you aren't harming anybody, you should be free to do what you want to do." On the surface, I don't mind that - it's how most people live for the most part. But it's fascinating because most of those people would probably run in horror as soon as they heard about ridiculous things like DROs and the pseudo-philosophical drivel of libertarian theologians. Libertarianism goes from this simplistic, reasonable sort of idea to a complex, burdensome, impossible structure that assumes everyone will just think the same, not take advantage of the enormous power vacuums it would create, and keep everything that centralized "thieving" governments operational gave us at a fraction of the cost. I haven't heard the evidence or seen an example of that working. And I legitimately would love to see it, since I like being proven wrong.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 04:42
|
|
|
GulMadred posted:I actually see some merit in it as a thought exercise. "Could we recreate useful and popular elements of human society in the absence of a state?" is sort of like how exobiologists once asked "Could we setup a lifeform capable of nutrition and self-replication without nucleic acids?" The latter question seems like speculative and untestable nonsense, but then forty years later it turns out to be possibly relevant to evolution (the Protein Interaction World hypothesis). In order to complete your analogy, exobiologists would insist that humans would be much better off without nucleic acids. They would argue that this is provable from first principles, and any evidence to the contrary would be rejected.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 06:17
|
|
|
Look, if nucleic acids are so "good" for society, then why not make humans out of 100% nucleic acids?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 18:21
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:In order to complete your analogy, exobiologists would insist that humans would be much better off without nucleic acids. They would argue that this is provable from first principles, and any evidence to the contrary would be rejected. 1) Whereas humans die; 2) Whereas death is due to the breakdown of organs; 3) Whereas organs contain nucleic acids; 4) Ergo,
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 18:24
|
|
|
Muscle Tracer posted:1) Whereas humans die; Still not as good as my logical proof that all animal life is inherently immoral. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 18:26
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:Still not as good as my logical proof that all animal life is inherently immoral. paragon1 posted:1. The sun is the source of all life giving energy.  My only concern is that, in fact, plants are also mooching off of the sun, which is in turn mooching off of matter that rightfully belongs to the Big Bang.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 18:46
|
|
|
Muscle Tracer posted:
The Sun is a free market!
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 18:46
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:The Sun is a free market! Pffff! If it weren't for the oppressive regulation of gravity, the sun wouldn't even EXIST! Gravity necessarily aggresses against my God-given natural right to exist only as a loose and slowly-expanding collection of particles. Only in the TRULY free market of a heat-dead universe can matter be TRULY free of the oppression of its peers.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 18:50
|
|
|
Muscle Tracer posted:
Nah, neither was coerced into releasing energy. I think humans might be okay if we stick to fruits whose reproductive strategy is to get their fruits eaten and their seeds pooped out. Also we'll have to give up toilets.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 18:50
|
|
|
Muscle Tracer posted:Pffff! If it weren't for the oppressive regulation of gravity, the sun wouldn't even EXIST! Gravity necessarily aggresses against my God-given natural right to exist only as a loose and slowly-expanding collection of particles. Only in the TRULY free market of a heat-dead universe can matter be TRULY free of the oppression of its peers. All life is Freemen on the Land
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 18:52
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:It's really hard to believe this when you make absolutely no effort to correct for this problem, and after so long it's entirely reasonable to say that this is an outright lie on your part. Which is, ironically, exactly what the Kochs do when they talk about praxeology. Praxeology never died on the cross and is not human. Those differences don't matter to you all but they do to me. I don't think Libertarians can seriously consider that the root of the things they believe in, might not be true. I don't think libertarianism can go to the place where it's meaning is absent. I don't think that their foundation can be confronted with it's negation and continue to be a viable thing. That's a conversation Christianity can have that Libertarianism can't. SedanChair posted:Did you even know that the Kochs didn't use praxeology to make a fortune from nothing? You waste. I know with certainty that it's how they run their business. That they started rich doesn't invalidate that have moved on to run the largest most successful privately company held on the planet. If this is ignored that's a damned good way to lose to it. Why it's compelling to particular groups has to be understood, because if it's not understood it can't be responded to effectively. Further if it's not understood, when it spreads it can missed. CommieGIR posted:are adjusted for observed changes in a system when tested, so are religious concepts, this isn't something unique
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 18:56
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Praxeology never died on the cross and is not human. Those differences don't matter to you all but they do to me. And we're done here. BrandorKP posted:I know with certainty that it's how they run their business. That they started rich doesn't invalidate that have moved on to run the largest most successful privately company held on the planet. If this is ignored that's a damned good way to lose to it. Why it's compelling to particular groups has to be understood, because if it's not understood it can't be responded to effectively. That doesn't exactly NOT clear them of being morons, nor validates their support of libertarian-ism via their engineering experience. I don't know how you don't understand how appealing to authority by quoting them is a logical fallacy. Donald Trump runs 'successful businesses'. He's also been bankrupt more times than I can count. BrandorKP posted:so are religious concepts, this isn't something unique Nowhere near the same. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 18:59 on Dec 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 18:57
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Praxeology never died on the cross and is not human. Neither did the son of God. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 19:00
|
|
|
Look guys, I get that libertarianism requires a level of faith that rivals religious fervor, but can we keep the Christ chat in the Christ thread? Like, there is an entire other thread in which you are already having this exact same debate.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 19:03
|
|
|
You all should re-visit what Marx thought of the gods of religions. If your going to engage in criticism you've got address the real parts within the things you aim the criticism at. It's half assing to not do that. Bar Ran Dun fucked around with this message at 19:15 on Dec 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 19:05
|
|
|
Yeah I really don't think that anyone gives a poo poo about the Christ to Libertarianism analogy. I'd rather wait around for another libertarian to espouse some crazy and/or horrific ideas than discuss more religious bullshit
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 19:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 02:31 |
|
|
And that's also fun to do, too.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 19:27
|
|