|
I thought the Austrians didn't like Georgism or is it just that specific Austrians don't like it?
|
#
¿
Aug 27, 2014 21:19
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 07:59 |
|
|
Have some new Koch stuff, not the brothers but their underlings: http://ladylibertine.net/2014/09/02/threats/ “Collectivism: Exploring Its Nature and Consequences” Dr. Victor Davis posted:There’s a problem certainly (inaudible) Obama. And then we’ve added a third element (inaudible), and that is to make the argument that the one percent (inaudible) politically democratic — that’s demographically not true. It’s a white male Christian belief that (inaudible) unfairly, and they are at war with people of color, gays, and young women. It doesn’t matter that the Nation is very wealthy or young women (inaudible) very wealthy, or that minorities are very wealthy. He’s made that argument and he’s symbolically taken his own persona, Barack Hussein Obama, and said that I represent you. The fact that he likes to go to Martha’s Vineyard, or his wife likes to go to (inaudible), that doesn’t matter because this group of people believe (inaudible). And that’s very hard to (inaudible) all at once. Edit: Basically he argues for framing the democrats as the party of the exclusionary 1% http://ladylibertine.net/2014/09/02/features/ “The Free Society: Five Key Features and Benefits” Dr. Will Ruger posted:"Now another key (inaudible) of a free society is that it allows for people to realize true virtue, and true virtue is about choice. Sure, in a world without freedom, we could be prevented from (inaudible). But then any chance of actually doing it would be gone as well since real choice is a prerequisite of true virtue. (Inaudible) our common bonds without free will (inaudible). As conservative writer, Frank Meyer, said about men, “Unless men are free to be vicious, they cannot be virtuous.” No community can make them virtuous. The person is the one with the virtue. Unless (inaudible) he cannot be (inaudible). Most interesting part to me: "The Free society" is "worth fighting for and a society worth dying for" Liberty (The Free society) there is being treated as what determines being or not being (in other words what is worth living and dying for) in that statement by Dr. Ruger. He's explicitly treating "The Free society" as his object of Ultimate Concern, it's a statement of faith.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2014 18:52
|
|
|
More of a slob actually. What started out as a convenient way to figure this libertarian business out has turned into that I never want to hear "If you had done something about this I would not have to".
|
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2014 17:19
|
|
|
The Mutato posted:Liability insurance would be necessary in a free society. Sounds more like the failing of a monopolised legal system to me. Do you know what liability insurers do to control risk? (at-least in heavy industry and transportation) They hire, or they force the client to hire, or they force the client to force another party to hire, an independent third party to provide a survey regarding whatever they are insuring (or sometimes they also do this internally.) That independent third party (or internal insurance company risk management employee) what does their survey consist of? Usually it's a survey to ensure that whatever they are insuring is in accordance with good standard practices (and here's the kicker) all national and international regulations. Liability insurance (again especially for heavy industry and transportation) is very dependent on government regulations, because those regulations are often the standards by which risk is reduced. A specific example: If one is going to insure the international shipment of say a power plant transformer, one (or several) of the parties (be it shipper, line, freight forwarder, insurer, etc) involved is almost always going to hire a surveyor (usually for insurance or self insurance purposes) to issue (and to ensure in reality) a certificate saying the shipment was in accordance with the international regulatory recommendations (in this case Annex 13 of the IMO Code of Safe Practice for Cargo Stowage and Securing) Further, how do these regulatory standards come into being. Well bad poo poo happens and people die. But on top of that somebody has to pay out for the damages. When enough bad poo poo happens for the same drat reason repeatedly insurance companies get together and say we need to do something about this. They collaborate with government agencies, experts, politicians, and participate in coming up with those bodies of regulation they will later use and rely on to reduce risk. Regulation is in the interest of liability insurers, and there is a long history of liability insurers partnering with government to help produce good regulation. The more I think about it that whole process of liability insurance and independent third party surveyors is probably where the DRO idea comes from. Well it doesn't work without the independent standards, ie government regulation.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2014 16:40
|
|
|
I wish I were good with gifs. I'd take this: and replace the Wikipedia logo with this 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2014 16:56
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Ah see, right there you've proven that the regulatory standards are agreed upon by private companies based on their experiences, who obviously have a rational interest in following those standards even without redundant and tyrannical enforcement by state power. First, I'm not trying to prove anything, I'm describing an observed process, and one I participate in (and thus can't be completely objective about). And that's why however much I think Libertarianism is crap, I just can't throw what I described out. Most people and most companies, really do genuinely want to do things right and safely. 95% percent of the time if something is explained, they'll comply with regulations and international treaty recommendations without having to be forced to. I used a cargo securing example earlier so I'll run with that. IMO CSC code prohibits "over the top" sometimes called "friction loop" lashings for ocean transport. Now that lashing type is what truck drivers use for nearly everything. So when you get a trucking company securing something heavy and OOG (out of grade) to a flat rack for ocean transport they'll often use friction loops. They then fail the third party survey and boy they get pissed. If why *(at end of post) is explained to them 95% of the time, they stop arguing and just do it. And even better, they continue to do it right after that even when they aren't inspected. But this isn't the only way things could and should happen, sometimes it doesn't work that way. We've got the dozens of examples in this thread, like the USS smoke stack pollution thing. It cannot be universalized to be an abstract rule that always holds, because when it doesn't work the exceptions are a big deal with severe consequences. And ignorance (occasionally willful and intentional, but usually not) is often a cause. VitalSigns posted:Since violating these basic rules is not in the rational self-interest of an insurance company that wants to maintain long-term solvency and profitability, Yes it absolutely is in the self interest of companies (and not just insurance companies) to follow regulatory rules voluntarily if they want to maintain long-term solvency and profitability. The problem is longterm solvency and longterm profitability are not always the goals of companies. We're structured to reward short term and that creates very different incentives (it incentivises breaking the rules). So between the exceptions to how the process normally occurs and the increasing emphasis on short term profits enforcement by government is a necessity. And the exceptions/short-term emphasis create situations like the derivatives market imploding and collapsing the economy or more concretely (what I'm directly familiar with) poo poo blowing up (like this example https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BythKAcY24Q). But I don't think they can acknowledge any of this. To acknowledge this breaks their myth. It breaks FREEDOM as a perfect literally true center of history. * For trucking, when lashings become loose the driver can stop and tighten the lashings, ratchet the straps chain binders etc. Friction loops depend on the lashing being tight, because what they do is increase the force of friction between the piece and truck bed by pulling it down. Well for ocean transport, stowage location is unknown and often inaccessible, usually nobody can check or tighten the lashings. Additionally a repetitive force acts on the piece, the rolling motion of the vessels. The rolling of the vessel causes the lashings to stretch and loosen (even metal chains!) over a voyage (which could be long). When friction loops loosen, they do not increase the friction between the piece and flat rack (because they aren't pulling it down anymore) and cease to do anything. Consequently direct lashings or half loops should be used for ocean transport. Bar Ran Dun fucked around with this message at 15:55 on Oct 1, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2014 15:50
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:
I know. But things are always more complicated. Take AIG's other insurance divisions. Most of those were run right. I could get specific, but I probably shouldn't.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2014 16:07
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:That's true, feudalism eliminates all coercion from society, because once all of England is the private property of one man (parceled out to vassals with easements requiring them to supply armies and obey the primary landowner's law of course), everyone who lives there is voluntarily agreeing to fight in Norman DRO's army and live under Norman DRO law, or they're perfectly free to leave and find unowned land somewhere to mix their labor with. Ah kingship, I wonder how they feel about the implied divinity of kings. I'd imagine it never occurs to them.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2014 17:30
|
|
|
For the explicit definition from the horses mouth look for the book The Science of Human Action by Ludwig Von Mises. (Edit: A Koch book club all time favorite) Or just go here: http://www.praxeology.net/praxeo.htm Bar Ran Dun fucked around with this message at 17:55 on Oct 6, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2014 17:52
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Maybe I'm not up on my Mises. I guess I feel apart from most other libertarians in this sense. This is like a Catholic going: I like taking communion, but I'm not up on what this substance business is and I feel apart from most other Catholics in this sense.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2014 18:18
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:If by "substance" you mean transubstantiation, then I know for a fact that my catholic wife and her entire family don't believe in it. I don't think I've ever met a catholic who does. Yeah I thought I should add something along the lines of "and that's really pretty common" and then didn't. American Catholics have had a lot of Protestantism rub off on them. The reason I picked communion for the comparison is the whole substance thing. Transubstantiation is alien as praxeology (and in the same way!) to most people. It's that it's looking back to Aristotle stuff again. Bar Ran Dun fucked around with this message at 19:38 on Oct 6, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2014 19:35
|
|
|
I'm fond of "idol"
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2014 20:08
|
|
|
Only time I ever see check points for alcohol are the nights of major holidays that correspond to excessive drinking like New Years Eve or St. Patrick Day. That a particularly large number of people drink on a particular day is a perfectly reasonable reason especially if said check is say between 2 and 5 AM. That is very different from randomly stopping and searching individuals for no reason.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2014 18:49
|
|
|
Oh for fucks sake. If you exist you coerce.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2014 19:59
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Got it. Economic coercion - no big deal. No, it is a massive huge, fuckoff big deal. Just one not fixed by smaller or eliminated governments. I'll say it another way. Reduction of the size of government does gently caress all towards reconciling sin. Lower taxes, doesn't make us free. Reducing regulation isn't going to stop groups or individuals from coercing each other. The most basic fundamental premise, the initial transcendental a priori axiom, the root, the foundation of the ideology is bullshit. It is a non-sequitor solution to the problem it tries to rectify. Saying this in no way asserts that the problem is "- no big deal."
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2014 14:35
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:EC just expresses the idea that if a person's array of money-acquisition options includes A, B and C, but not X, when they would prefer X, they are constrained to choosing a money-making activity that is sub-optimal for them because if they choose nothing they get no money. It's not a thing libertarianism is concerned about and doesn't factor into a libertarian conception of coercion. Bullshit. If you can't choose X you are prevented from acting freely as you will. Have you looked at Mises or Hayeks definitions of coercion? Let's go with Hayek today: "Coercion occurs when one man's actions are made to serve another man's will, not for his own but for the other's purpose." Not being able to choose job X because you are constrained from doing by some one or something else? That's definitionally the Libertarian conception of coercion. It's the keeping of an individual from acting freely to do his own will.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2014 16:26
|
|
|
Yeah and it's very hard have agency, to be free to, unless you are free from bullshit like starving.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2014 16:33
|
|
|
Mises has a similiar one too, can't seem to find it right now, think it's in Human Action. But if by existing we necessarily coerce others (and we do) and if violence is justified as self defense against coercion then Libertarianism is a blanket justification for violence. I think that has borne out by it's usage in the US too, especially as justification against the civil right movement. See things like Asa Carter's "Liberty" radio show. Something similiar happens anytime there is a conscious (as opposed to a natural or naive) literalism insisting on an unbroken myth (unbroken meaning it claims to be literally true).
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2014 17:38
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:What you're proposing is absurd. I'm not proposing it! I directly quoted Hayek! http://books.google.com/books?id=Uc...ose.%22&f=false and no less than Rothbard agrees with my characterization of Hayek's definition http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/twentyeight.asp "for Hayek includes in the concept of “coercion” not only invasive physical violence, i.e., a compulsory action or exchange, but also certain forms of peaceful, voluntary refusal to make exchanges. Surely, the freedom to make an exchange necessarily implies the equivalent freedom not to make an exchange. Yet, Hayek dubs certain forms of peaceful refusal to make an exchange as “coercive,” thus lumping them together with compulsory exchanges. " I'm running out of time today, but Rothbard's definition of coercion is poo poo too, with it's own lovely repercussion btw.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2014 19:28
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Probably. Even if we're talking about the NO GOVERNMENT, ALL IS ANARCHY, LET CHAOS REIGN brand of An-Cap that you guys seem to take as the One True Libertarianism. Well you don't like Mises', Hayek's, or Rothbard's definitions of coercion. That's a very large chunk of Libertarianism excluded. It's like being Christian but not Catholic, Protestant, or Orthodox, or signing onto any version of Nicene.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2014 16:00
|
|
|
Basically implied by the crapping on Libertarianism is: What you have chosen to believe has meaning, well, it doesn't really have any meaning. Saying that pisses people right off. Also when somebody says "I believe in particular end X", well, often implied is that end X justifies means A,B, and C. Not everybody has thought those implied things through. So when A,B, and C are talked about and are objectionable (or even horrific) that also pisses people off.
Bar Ran Dun fucked around with this message at 15:41 on Oct 16, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2014 15:22
|
|
|
Elysium is also very much influenced by Death of God theology. Elysium, the joy or incorruptibility to come, Heaven. Matt Damon's character ascends to heaven to bring resurrection of the body (literally so in the film) to earth, redeeming heaven and earth. A lot of people missed that I think.
Bar Ran Dun fucked around with this message at 17:01 on Oct 21, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Oct 21, 2014 14:22
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:How exactly does one have a productive debate against praxeology? Apology. You need a radical criticism that he won't recognize (and thus just tune out), that shares some common ground (so that there can be communication), and that offers more complete salvation than what praxeology offers. Three necessary parts: 1. "there must be a common basis, some mutually accepted ideas."... "If there is nothing in common between them no communication is possible" 2. "must show that in the actual ideas".. "there are defects" "One shows the negativity in the other one, as the second step of apologetics." 3. "Thirdly, one shows that one's own position is not to be accepted as something from outside, which is thrown at one's head – this is not good apologetics, throwing stones... but that X is the fulfillment of what is, as longing and desire in (in this case praxeology" In other words you need an ideology that has something in common with Austrian Economics/ Praxeology, that can radically critique Austrian Economics and strongly (and correctly) so, and that can offer what Austrian Economics offers more completely.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 23, 2014 14:48
|
|
|
No. Basically, there has to be talk about freedom (so as to share common ground). That can also criticize "FREEDOM", freedom treated as an absolute, as the action axiom (to show the massive problems with the basic idea of praxeology.) And this talk also has to address in a real way and to create in the world by motivating people to action the freedom it talks about. To me this means: liberal (talk about freedom as the necessary common ground) monotheistic (have no other Gods) or alternately strongly atheistic (So it can say Freedom as synthetic a priori, or perfect absolute, or idol is crap). and humanistic ( it has to be centered on addressing real human needs and struggles)
|
|
#
¿
Oct 23, 2014 15:37
|
|
|
Rockopolis posted:I dunno, like, what is there that is similar that won't draw the same conclusions? Yes that is a very real danger. The alternative is only throwing stones at heads, kerygma. Proclaiming at them, preaching at them. They do a lot of that too. It ends up looking like Jrodenfeld or when it's really terrible it can look like this: shiranaihito posted:- Taxation is extortion Another way to say it, how effective are evangelicals when they go to a random place (say a amusement park) and randomly just corner people and talk about Jesus. They aren't very effective (and they (the evangelicals doing it) actually keep stats on that type of stuff too* more below), they put people off, they come off as assholes. So that's the risk of not having common ground. You end up looking like shiranaihito, or an evangelical and it's just not effective. And what I think needs to be realized is that the sophisticated ones on the libertarian side, they're already trying to do this in the opposite direction. This process is already being aimed at us and our society. Rich libertarians are literally funding "science of freedom research projects" to do apology towards an end of conversion. They also do this by creating theonomous** situations. And they've been doing it for decades! There is a response and that response is apology. But to really do that honestly creates the risks inherent in having common ground with people one fundamentally disagrees with, which is the risk of losing one's own conclusions and beliefs. The risk of losing one's own way of defining meaning and interpreting reality. And I don't mean all this in just terms of abstractly thinking about it and arguing in threads like these. I mean in the sense of living life in that way, it has to be real. * You can look at something like Campus Crusade for Christ. The keep record of the number of times the spiel is given, number of times it was listened to, number of times there was interest, and number of times people "gave their lives to Jesus" That last one (the one they really care about) is often in the sub 1% range. If they've been really good about preselecting an audience (say they are looking to convert from another Christian denomination) they might get up near 4-5% ** By theonomous I mean they set up structures in the real world that imply a final conclusion (their variant of libertarianism) to the people who participate in those structures. Think George Mason University, think Fox News, think think tanks, think young entrepreneurs scholarship programs
|
|
#
¿
Oct 23, 2014 17:13
|
|
|
EvanSchenck posted:American-style libertarianism is a totally marginal political movement that is only seriously subscribed to by fringe weirdos like Ron Paul or Ayn Rand plus a relative handful of their dork fans on the internet. Except for those pesky Koch brothers who fund all those think tanks, and organize all those rich donors, and are all dumping all that money into the current election cycle? http://www.kochind.com/Newsroom/EconomicFreedom.aspx Want to Learn More? Followed by straight up link to Mises. That's as libertarian as it gets (and I can go into way more detail if you'd like). All those Freedom or Liberty PACs pushing GOP candidates are marginal? There are different wings/denominations of Libertarianism and only identifying the Paulites or internet types as libertarian is a dangerous mistake. Bar Ran Dun fucked around with this message at 15:17 on Oct 24, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2014 15:04
|
|
|
Hypocrisy generally does not remove one from being identified with a particular group. Most (All?) people are hypocrites about something related to the group/ideology they belong to / identify with. Edit: Is it really viable to suggest D. Koch, actual libertarian candidate for president at one point, is not within Libertarianism? It's like fundamentalists arguing that Catholics are not Christians. Bar Ran Dun fucked around with this message at 15:52 on Oct 24, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2014 15:41
|
|
|
Charles Koch has an raging boner for Libertarianism and there is a mountain, just reams and reams, of evidence for this publicly available. "don't want to pay taxes" and don't want to "deal with government regulations" "doubt they care about anything other than letting themselves become even more enormously rich" that's your argument that they aren't Libertarians. I think the whole "Kochs aren't Libertarians" line is a consequence of the Rothbard / Hayek split within Libertarian groups. http://reason.com/archives/2010/03/01/a-tale-of-two-libertarianisms
|
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2014 18:34
|
|
|
EvanSchenck posted:I get the impression that the only part of my post that you read was the quoted portion. Yes that would be the part I was taking objection to. And that's the part I think is explained by the Hayek / Rothbard divide. The Hayek side seemed to occasionally compromise itself and act practically (in conflict with their ideology) and from what I see are now basically fully part of the mainstream GOP. The Rothbard crowd seems to be more rigid and doesn't bend. EvanSchenck posted:David Koch may himself be a libertarian by conviction but he only achieved political relevance by working within the machinery of mainstream conservatism, which limits what he can achieve. In fact the key factor in movement conservatism today is the anger of the far-right fringe (including not only libertarians but also Christian theocrats and others) at being unable to enact its varied agenda, because it has been blocked not only by Democrats but more importantly by the Republican establishment. Look I agree with this part: "the key factor in movement conservatism today is the anger of the far-right fringe". But let's look at think tanks for a moment. Look at how something like Heritage has changed over the years (what does DeMint heading it imply). Look at the last Republican Vice Presidential candidate. I don't know that they are blocked by the Republican establishment anymore! JBS was allowed back to CPAC after all, Buckley must be spinning in his grave over that. I mean the conversation has shifted from "those nutjobs aren't invited" to "well we won't let the nutjobs be the sponsor of the event because it looks bad" Here's the hypothetical I would ask: what policies would we get if they take the senate this election and then manage to take the presidency in 2016? Would we get something like the Bush years (more Republican establishment)? Or would we get something like Kansas? EvanSchenck posted:There's a tendency in the American left to believe that the Koch brothers are these puppet masters who run the Republican Party, but the reality is that their influence is mediated by the other factions within the party. The end result is, as I said before, the Republican Party enacts those parts of the libertarian agenda that coincide with conservative positions--many of which are original paleoconservative stances that have been in the GOP platform since long before American libertarianism really existed as a movement. I think they've moved the the conservative positions. I think they have, through intentional action, taken over many of the think tanks and university programs and fundraising organizations, etc. And I don't think the Koch are puppet masters, I think they are evangelists. I think the idea itself is the problem and I don't limit that idea to Libertarianism: it's one expression of willful greed, desire for individual power, and selfishness. Rockopolis posted:But then, what would you say about Vital Signs' objection, that they don't actually value "freedom", that it's more of a shibboleth than a conviction? I like that you used "a shibboleth " to describe it. How did Ephraimites feel about saying shibboleth? That it is a shibboleth, a tool by which to differentiate ingroup from outgroup, scares me. Especially that it's being used as a political tool. Some of them value it, some of them don't, but they're all participating in it and using it. And we're on the outside of it. And this goes back to my response to EvanSchenck. They've used it as shibboleth within the GOP already, you don't speak the words you get primaried. And they use it as one in general election to turn the base out. Look at what they are doing in this thread. When they come here and post they are announcing this is how you speak "Freedom" or "human action", their shibboleth, to us. Bar Ran Dun fucked around with this message at 17:32 on Oct 27, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2014 17:10
|
|
|
Rockopolis posted:
Right, that's what I was saying. Are we rolling Praxeology? We're the Ephraimites. We ain't saying shibboleth, not because we can't, but because it's bullshit. An example: The President is definitely not a socialist. He's not a muslim. He's not a traitor stamping on the constitution. I think it's pretty clear he's a Liberal Christian Realist (and some people disagree with me on the Christian Realist part, but loving Reinhold Niebhur and being able to discuss him at length from memory makes that pretty drat clear cut as far as I am concerned). How do they arrive at this President = evil, commie/fascist, all things wrong, business? Shibboleth, they link their ideology to what it means to be American and to be a good person. If you don't participate in that ideology, that is if you're saying sibboleth, you're an un-american criminal. Hence President = monster (Keynan, Muslim, Socialist etc) Look at how someone like Darrel Issa operates. It's not accident that he acts like Joe McCarthy. It's a straight ideological line and nothing has to be twisted spun or massaged, to reach that conclusion either. "I have here in my hand a list of 205 that were made known to the Secretary of State", it's a very tiny step back to a very dark place. Now why is the systematization of Libertarian thought going on relevant to this. Well it's development of a dogma and there is a process to how dogma works. The last step of that process: "FIFTH, the acceptance of these doctrines as the foundation not only of the Church but also of the state, because the state has no other content than the content the Church gives it., so that he who is supposed to undermine this content not only undermines the Church but also the state. He is not only a heretic who must be excommunicated; he is also a criminal who must be delivered into the hands of the civil authorities to punish him as a criminal. " Therein lie the stakes. What would be the repercussion of Jrods "infallible (Austrian) truth" as foundation for the US state. What happens if it goes from Shibboleth to foundational concept of the nation-state. They're already arguing for this btw, that's what all the "Muh Constitution" (and to some extent the states rights talk too) talk is. And already they are using their ideas to criminalize particular groups, see "illegal" immigrants. They're even willing to do this to busloads of children fleeing drug violence. Look at the voting suppression they are doing. We can't let vote fraud occur therefore we needs laws X,Y, and Z. It's pseudo-criminalization (they're just implying if you lack a particular photo ID that you are voting illegally) of lacking a photo ID to prevent voting. Where does this go as demographics continue to shift against the GOP? "You don't see Ephraimites around anymore" Hodgepodge posted:This is a basic idea in philosophy, literally Philosophy 101: a logically consistent argument in which conclusions follow from it's premises is called a valid argument, not a true argument. This is also defined concisely by Wikipedia as such: They aren't doing philosophy though. They are doing theology, they have an axiom revealed to them by Reason that they are ultimately concerned with, that they believe they have an absolute dependance upon. And they are right (unfortunately) about one thing, an empirical criticism of that is a non-sequitur. The truth of faith is not the truth of a particular belief. You can show every one of their beliefs to be false, they'll just change them or qualify them. What you need to do is show that we all are not absolutely dependent on human action and freedom. Bar Ran Dun fucked around with this message at 17:05 on Oct 29, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2014 16:54
|
|
I'm pretty sure the Ephraimites didn't say shibboleth, they said sibboleth, which was the point. Also why you don't see Ephraimites around anymore.
|
It's a literal social contract you sign to defend the nation after turning 18 if you're a male, "an actual written document you get to sign up for".
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2014 17:24
|
|
|
Rockopolis posted:If, as you say, it's not about truth, but to pick sides (and targets), what good is somehow showing we're not absolutely dependent on human action and freedom. I just don't have a problem with looking at it in both ways. On one hand it doesn't matter matter if they think it's true or not, the Libertarian talk is a political tool (a shibboleth) they are using to get what they want by othering groups and individuals (internally in primaries and externally in general elections). This is a very dangerous thing. I also think they target individuals with problems by proselytizing widely, in the same way other extremist and fundamentalist groups do. They also target wealthy individuals with influence (and there was quite a bit on that in the NYTs recently, on Koch type Libertarians trying to bring in the silicon valley crowd) They also fund/build real world organizations intended to create individuals, who by having come through those organization and structures have beliefs that are in line with their goals. Talking about all that isn't talking about truths. On the other hand it's a religion with an ultimate concern of: free human action. And I think some of the important ones (best example the Kochs) are true believers too! From that foundation they accuse the rest of us as threats to freedom, or threats to the American Dream, or threats to the Constitution. Again I think we can look at the example of the language they throw at the President, to see how nasty that accusation can get. I also think they can point this anywhere (because we all coerce others by existing). The response to accusation is apology (which is not proselytizing!) To go after free human action as a false religious idol. Talking about this is talking about truths. Rockopolis posted:Aren't they just going ignore it, or further entrench themselves? Or double down on opposing you They'll take it as a personal attack. And this already is happening too. All sorts of people (and I can go into specific examples if you want) are going after the foundational idea of Libertarianism now. This is taken personally because it's attack on what they see their identity (and in the example below, their business) as being absolutely dependent on. It will be responded in personal terms as an accusation directed at them personally. Like this: http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303978304579475860515021286 That is also apology and it's one pointed at all of us.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2014 19:25
|
|
|
Choosing determines all human decisions. In making his choice man chooses not only between various material things and services. All human values are offered for option. All ends and all means, both material and ideal issues, the sublime and the base, the noble and the ignoble, are ranged in a single row and subjected to a decision which picks out one thing and sets aside another. Nothing that men aim at or want to avoid remains outside of this arrangement into a unique scale of gradation and preference. The modern theory of value widens the scientific horizon and enlarges the field of economic studies. Out of the political economy of the classical school emerges the general theory of human action, praxeology. -Human Action So that's what's going on, it's just individual will "choosing." I've been trying to figure out what the revelatory foundation of praxeology is. There is an idea called the theological circle. You have a special revelatory experience, a concrete experience, from which universal claims are made. In something like Christianity that might looks like this: "The event of Jesus as the Christ is the Logos". From there new questions are answered by the revelatory event. So in Christianity new questions are answered by the revealed event of "Jesus". In other words, the revelatory foundation is Jesus, which is a concrete thing that happen(s)(ed), that gets pointed to as answer. So talk about God in Christianity would come from an experience of Jesus as Christ. So for praxeology the revelatory foundation is "Choosing". The theophany (where the god appears) is that we makes choices. So that would make the special revelatory experience of Austrian economics: free markets (i.e. where we make choices.) Which is why this stuff always points back to free markets as the answer to any question! Edit: And Mises is literally saying that! "Out of the political economy of the classical school emerges the general theory of human action, praxeology." Bar Ran Dun fucked around with this message at 21:19 on Nov 5, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2014 21:13
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Like most Libertarians, they're just neocons running from the brand they've made toxic. Putting it literally up on the walls =! running from the brand. Fundamentally structuring one's business around it, ie. "The theory of MBM is rooted in the Science of Human Action." =! running from the brand. (http://www.kochind.com/MBM/) I mean they are basically and publicly telling everyone: This poo poo here (KII) runs on praxeology. And if they are anything other than Libertarians they're John Birchers.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2014 15:29
|
|
|
Muscle Tracer posted:The "toxic" brand he's refering to is neo-conservativism. I misread that then. But I still disagree with it. I've seen (and I mean seen, not read read about online) MBM stuff that predates neo-conservativism becoming toxic. That started happening after the Iraq war. The MBM stuff, some of that is pre 9/11. It's fact that C. Koch was writing about "markets", as defined by Austrian economics, as providing grounds for a firm management theory well before being a neo-conservative becomes distasteful. And JBS funds LeFevre's "Freedom School" where C. Koch gets his boner for "autarchist" thought, which is a bit different from the Ancap stuff. But it's really clear he gets into this stuff way before (like the 50-60s before) the neo-cons roll around in the poo poo they took on the Middle East and stink of it. Again it goes back the the divides in Libertarianism. Hayek / Rothbard and autarchists / anarchists just because an individual or groups is on one side or the other of these divisions doesn't make them not Libertarian. That ("it's not Libertarian") is definitely going to get thrown around internally between the groups on the different sides, but that doesn't make it true. It's like this: Fundamentalists might call Catholics "not Christian", but they (Catholics) definitely are Christian. The Kochs are definitely Libertarian. If they are just neo-cons fleeing the name neo-con, why did C. Koch co-found a think tank with Rothbard in the seventies? Edit: Heh, got examples of the autarchists calling the anarchists socialists. "Thus, without question, even the Americans who followed the banner of anarchy were socialists to some degree, for their primary objective was economic reform of some type."- LeFevre. That ones a beauty there: eliminating government because it's "economic reform of some type" apparently equals socialism. Rolling back regulation must be socialism too. Bar Ran Dun fucked around with this message at 18:28 on Nov 7, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2014 17:20
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:They're not ancaps though because the Kochs don't want to disband the police, courts, and army. Right they're autarchists, because C. Koch got his start in Libertarianism from LeFerve. Autarchists are still Libertarians. And autarchists often get called anarchists, but they think the anarchists are socialists. http://fair-use.org/rampart-journal/1965/12/autarchy-versus-anarchy That link there, it might be the place where the split in Libertarianism starts too. "It is the purpose of this paper to begin the process of this essential cleavage." Which they do by... looking to Lysander Spooner. This stuff filters down eventually and these ideas appear in the people posting in this thread. How do the ideas of Spooner get to somebody like Jrod? And importantly the Leferve stuff (which spawns the Koch stuff) is really different from the neo-conservatism of somebody like Kristol and really different from the conservatism of somebody like Buckley. And I think it's a mistake to lump them all together. VitalSigns posted:And they want themselves, and only themselves Right "the absolute sovereignty of the individual over himself and all that belongs to him." That's what matters to them. That's what they believe is the only thing that should rule over their actions. And that doesn't always conflict with goverment, in the way anarchism would. VitalSigns posted:They're also fine with allying themselves with those who want the government to regulate everyone's sex lives. In other words, they are neocons. Their praxeology poo poo is just that: a front to get idealistic rubes to vote for Liberty* candidates. Of course they're fine with allying with groups that want to regulate our sex lives. The sex stuff would be seen as a lack of "self rule" people choosing immoral actions that are against natural law.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2014 19:57
|
|
|
See this is why it matters so much if the GOP establishment is still in control or if the Tea Party/Birchers/various Libertarian strands have won the internal ideological battle on the right. Surprise racism. Straight from asserting virtue economics (good people good country crap) to "racially homogenous." It's even an if-then ("following that") type of assertion! A jump to: ideologically homogenous could be made in the same way.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2014 19:18
|
|
|
Did this get posted: http://thecolbertreport.cc.com/videos/dvppp6/difference-makers---the-free-keene-squad
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2014 16:17
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:This just in: Engineers are libertarians and all models are no different from libertarianism "As an engineer, I understood that the natural world operated according to fixed laws. Through my studies, I came to realize that there were, like wise, laws that govern human well being." - Charles Koch talking about why he came to believe in Praxeology.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2014 20:43
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 07:59 |
|
|
CommieGIR posted:The fact that its a poo poo and nonfunctional model is why comparing it to engineering models of an industrial process or scientific models of a water processor is wrong. All models are functional within the confines of their assumptions, when those assumptions are valid. Engineering models are just as non-functional when applied outside the constraints of the assumptions used to derive them. Not understanding this occasionally kills people btw.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2014 21:22
|
|