For Michael Gerson there is one simple explanation for Objectivism: adolescence.
Many of us experienced a few unfortunate years of invincible self-involvement, testing moral boundaries and prone to stormy egotism and hero worship.
Michael obviously seems to know what he is talking about. Either himself or many of his friends and family must have been egotistic, self-involved and immoral hero worshippers during their youth. So basically what we are dealing here with is a social circle of JOCKS.
Usually one grows out of it, eventually discovering that the quality of our lives is tied to the benefit of others.
Unfortunatelly, Michael hasn't grown out of it. When jocks discover they can no longer beat up people without going to jail, they do seek alternative ways of abuse. Soon they discover political means to do so, ie collectivist ideologies, which give them a moral right to force other people into servitude. Thus, a jock eventually joins one of the strands of modern collectivism, be it religious, conservatist or liberal. In theory their sport heroes get replaced by either God, Nation or Society. In practice however they all worship Government as the hero that forces other people to serve their goals. So no wonder Michael must obviously hate Rand's moral commandment never to sacrifice others to himself. He rants against "selfishness" so that at the end of the day he can enjoy a society molded and bullied by his hero Government. A society where our lives become "tied to the benefit of" Michael Gerson and the like.
Brrr...
piątek, 29 kwietnia 2011
sobota, 9 kwietnia 2011
The Whitest Kids U' Know
WKUK is a very talented group, especially Trevor Moore, I love him. Some brilliant sketches. Here are basically the best out of the first three seasons, some are simply hysterical:
Bad Panda, Brain Tumor, Heaven, Opposite Day, Mall Bitches, Ten Easy Steps to Have a Perfect Relationship, Girl Sympathy, Moon Bears, 911 Call, Joining The Army, Ninja School, Accidental Puke, Call Of Duty, Gandalf, Grapist, Throw Up Employee, Earthquake, Accidental Puke, White Castle Cheesburger, Summer Vacation Story, Gallon of PCP, Get a New Daddy, Saturday, Good Morning Dad, Happy Birthday, Line Leader, Take My Face Off, The Never Song, Trevor Talks To Kids, Whiskey, Dinosaur Rap, God Says Song
Now down to business. WKUK is pretty liberal. Which is usually good for comedy. Conservative biased shows are rarely funny. There are outstanding exceptions like It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia, but liberals are usually the open minded ones. Take Sniper Business. Pretty funny sketch (not nearly as funny as some of the above though). WKUK tells us business is like a war. Funny, but false. Precisely zero people die and rarely any assets are destroyed when a company goes bankrupt. Rather, people change jobs and assets get reallocated to more efficient uses. Actually, business is precisely the opposite of war. It happens to be the one and only way for society to increase its standard of living. However yes, free market competition does not guarantee life employment and eternal status quo. Sorry, that is reserved for Heaven.
So I have nothing against funny liberal sketches, but then Backseat killed me. I have never seen anything so explicit in a comedy group before. It's not much of a sketch really, but a detailed recap of WKUK political views:
If you think about it, socialism's not really that bad. Yeah, I guess you're right. It's kind of like, being really nice and fair. If you think about it, socialism's like everybody helping everybody else out and capitalism's like greed. It's weird. It's like the only reason capitalism works is because it plays on man's biggest flaw. It's almost like, if you really work on developing your soul and being a good person, capitalism is constantly throwing obstacles in your way. Yeah, it's like the principles that every single religion teaches are directly opposed to the principles of capitalism.
Now, we know the guys are brilliant. As such they are another example for Bread & Butter, my very first post. I admire WKUK. But then, the guys are retarded, at least as far as economics goes.
Going backwards, the last sentence: Yeah, it's like the principles that every single religion teaches are directly opposed to the principles of capitalism. Of course they are! Socialism is a religion with God replaced by Society, another abstract being that does not exist in reality. No one has ever talked with Society except prophets of socialism, who seem to know in detail what Society's needs are. How is that different with God prophets? We had Industrial Revolution 200 years ago when capitalism was invented, and not 10,000 years ago (or whatever) when first religions were. WKUK guys do seem to be aware of religion pitfalls in God Says Song. Still, no clue, no idea how to connect the dots.
It's almost like, if you really work on developing your soul and being a good person, capitalism is constantly throwing obstacles in your way. I agree it should be as easy as possible to be a decent person. But then, as Einstein has said, you should try making everything as simple as possible, but never simpler. It is fallacious to believe there can exist a system which makes it easier to produce than to steal. Laziness is easier than productivity, sort of fundemental thing in our universe, no matter what solar system you are on, if you think about it.
If you think about it, socialism's like everybody helping everybody else out and capitalism's like greed. It's weird. It's like the only reason capitalism works is because it plays on man's biggest flaw. No, in real (not fairy tale) socialism you have to pay bribes or be close friends to get anything done, because no one has financial motivation to work. Defrauding the company you work for is pretty much okay (each is sort of worker owned, at least in theory), so if you work at a toilet paper company, you steal toilet paper and barter with other guys who, say, work in a grocery or butcher's shop etc. But this is all redundant in capitalism. You don't need other people to love you or bribe them to provide you with goods and services you need. You simply pay them using goods you've previously earned by offering your own services and goods to yet other parties, money working as an intermediary. You don't eliminate greed by eliminating capitalism. Rather you merely eliminate the only non-violent and honest method of cooperation (ie helping everybody else out) between strangers.
If you think about it, socialism's not really that bad. Yeah, I guess you're right. It's kind of like, being really nice and fair.
I mean, really, you should take Heaven and replace Suicide with Socialism there.
Bad Panda, Brain Tumor, Heaven, Opposite Day, Mall Bitches, Ten Easy Steps to Have a Perfect Relationship, Girl Sympathy, Moon Bears, 911 Call, Joining The Army, Ninja School, Accidental Puke, Call Of Duty, Gandalf, Grapist, Throw Up Employee, Earthquake, Accidental Puke, White Castle Cheesburger, Summer Vacation Story, Gallon of PCP, Get a New Daddy, Saturday, Good Morning Dad, Happy Birthday, Line Leader, Take My Face Off, The Never Song, Trevor Talks To Kids, Whiskey, Dinosaur Rap, God Says Song
Now down to business. WKUK is pretty liberal. Which is usually good for comedy. Conservative biased shows are rarely funny. There are outstanding exceptions like It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia, but liberals are usually the open minded ones. Take Sniper Business. Pretty funny sketch (not nearly as funny as some of the above though). WKUK tells us business is like a war. Funny, but false. Precisely zero people die and rarely any assets are destroyed when a company goes bankrupt. Rather, people change jobs and assets get reallocated to more efficient uses. Actually, business is precisely the opposite of war. It happens to be the one and only way for society to increase its standard of living. However yes, free market competition does not guarantee life employment and eternal status quo. Sorry, that is reserved for Heaven.
So I have nothing against funny liberal sketches, but then Backseat killed me. I have never seen anything so explicit in a comedy group before. It's not much of a sketch really, but a detailed recap of WKUK political views:
If you think about it, socialism's not really that bad. Yeah, I guess you're right. It's kind of like, being really nice and fair. If you think about it, socialism's like everybody helping everybody else out and capitalism's like greed. It's weird. It's like the only reason capitalism works is because it plays on man's biggest flaw. It's almost like, if you really work on developing your soul and being a good person, capitalism is constantly throwing obstacles in your way. Yeah, it's like the principles that every single religion teaches are directly opposed to the principles of capitalism.
Now, we know the guys are brilliant. As such they are another example for Bread & Butter, my very first post. I admire WKUK. But then, the guys are retarded, at least as far as economics goes.
Going backwards, the last sentence: Yeah, it's like the principles that every single religion teaches are directly opposed to the principles of capitalism. Of course they are! Socialism is a religion with God replaced by Society, another abstract being that does not exist in reality. No one has ever talked with Society except prophets of socialism, who seem to know in detail what Society's needs are. How is that different with God prophets? We had Industrial Revolution 200 years ago when capitalism was invented, and not 10,000 years ago (or whatever) when first religions were. WKUK guys do seem to be aware of religion pitfalls in God Says Song. Still, no clue, no idea how to connect the dots.
It's almost like, if you really work on developing your soul and being a good person, capitalism is constantly throwing obstacles in your way. I agree it should be as easy as possible to be a decent person. But then, as Einstein has said, you should try making everything as simple as possible, but never simpler. It is fallacious to believe there can exist a system which makes it easier to produce than to steal. Laziness is easier than productivity, sort of fundemental thing in our universe, no matter what solar system you are on, if you think about it.
If you think about it, socialism's like everybody helping everybody else out and capitalism's like greed. It's weird. It's like the only reason capitalism works is because it plays on man's biggest flaw. No, in real (not fairy tale) socialism you have to pay bribes or be close friends to get anything done, because no one has financial motivation to work. Defrauding the company you work for is pretty much okay (each is sort of worker owned, at least in theory), so if you work at a toilet paper company, you steal toilet paper and barter with other guys who, say, work in a grocery or butcher's shop etc. But this is all redundant in capitalism. You don't need other people to love you or bribe them to provide you with goods and services you need. You simply pay them using goods you've previously earned by offering your own services and goods to yet other parties, money working as an intermediary. You don't eliminate greed by eliminating capitalism. Rather you merely eliminate the only non-violent and honest method of cooperation (ie helping everybody else out) between strangers.
If you think about it, socialism's not really that bad. Yeah, I guess you're right. It's kind of like, being really nice and fair.
I mean, really, you should take Heaven and replace Suicide with Socialism there.
środa, 23 marca 2011
Libertarian Heavens On Earth And Beyond
Hugo Chavez claims capitalism has ended life on Mars. He fails to understand that, according to liberal reasoning, Mars is ultra capitalist even now. The reasoning goes like this. Libertarians hate government, right? There is no government in Somalia, right? Hence, Somalia is libertarian. Mars? Even more libertarian.
Sounds good superficially, same as any liberal retarded reasoning. We have to look at the starting liberal assumption again. Do libertarians really hate government? After all, aren't they complaining about government programs all the time? Calling government evil? The less government the better?
No. In fact, libertarian state would have the strongest government imaginable. Libertarians do not hate government as such. Libertarians hate government aggression, that is when it infringes on private property rights. Government programs are government aggression because they are financed from taxes. Some may be unavoidable, but we should always strive to reduce their number to a minimum. Hence, libertarian minimal state. However libertarians would actually increase government programs that protect private property rights if need be, like police, courts and the army. Unless I guess we finally manage to privatise them, but even then the overriding goal should always be private property rights protection. Libertarian state is the strongest one imaginable because its only purpose in life is to protect citizens' private property. Its whole might would be directed at this one single purpose, rather than dispersed among thousands of disparate programs rendering contemporary government a lobbyist heaven.
So there is no libertarian paradise neither on Mars nor in Somalia. There are actually many other countries that are pretty close to Somalia, like Haiti, most African, basically all third world countries. Their governments either do not exist or are too weak to protect private property rights. Sure, they often protect property rights of the ruling elite, but that's no different than in ancient, feudal, absolutist or mercantilist states. On the other hand, capitalism needs "blind" private property rights. Every citizen should have exactly same negative rights to buy and sell private property. This was the trigger of Industrial Revolution. And it is still certainly not the case on Mars, Somalia or Haiti.
Are the thrid world countries socialist then? Well, they are certainly much closer to socialism than libertarianism. After all, socialist government's only purpose in life is to infringe on private property rights. It's no different really from armed gangs in third world countries. More eloquent, yes. Substantively different, not. No wonder then that their GDPs per capita are similar.
Sounds good superficially, same as any liberal retarded reasoning. We have to look at the starting liberal assumption again. Do libertarians really hate government? After all, aren't they complaining about government programs all the time? Calling government evil? The less government the better?
No. In fact, libertarian state would have the strongest government imaginable. Libertarians do not hate government as such. Libertarians hate government aggression, that is when it infringes on private property rights. Government programs are government aggression because they are financed from taxes. Some may be unavoidable, but we should always strive to reduce their number to a minimum. Hence, libertarian minimal state. However libertarians would actually increase government programs that protect private property rights if need be, like police, courts and the army. Unless I guess we finally manage to privatise them, but even then the overriding goal should always be private property rights protection. Libertarian state is the strongest one imaginable because its only purpose in life is to protect citizens' private property. Its whole might would be directed at this one single purpose, rather than dispersed among thousands of disparate programs rendering contemporary government a lobbyist heaven.
So there is no libertarian paradise neither on Mars nor in Somalia. There are actually many other countries that are pretty close to Somalia, like Haiti, most African, basically all third world countries. Their governments either do not exist or are too weak to protect private property rights. Sure, they often protect property rights of the ruling elite, but that's no different than in ancient, feudal, absolutist or mercantilist states. On the other hand, capitalism needs "blind" private property rights. Every citizen should have exactly same negative rights to buy and sell private property. This was the trigger of Industrial Revolution. And it is still certainly not the case on Mars, Somalia or Haiti.
Are the thrid world countries socialist then? Well, they are certainly much closer to socialism than libertarianism. After all, socialist government's only purpose in life is to infringe on private property rights. It's no different really from armed gangs in third world countries. More eloquent, yes. Substantively different, not. No wonder then that their GDPs per capita are similar.
niedziela, 6 marca 2011
Pedophilia, Zoophilia and Child Murder
This post was inspired by libertarianism definition in Encyclopedia Dramatica (ED). Obviously, in ED you should expect blatant, biased lies, and expect boring truths to get deleted quickly, according to their About, but that's precisely why it accurately reflects the most popular misconceptions about libertarianism.
Every libertarian will, sooner or later, be called child/dog fucker/murderer. Interestingly though, according to ED itself, the crimes are always perpetrated by non-libertarians. After all, ED claims libertarians are either 13 year old boys, fratboys who watch South Park, people that want to appear "alternative", or paranoid survivalists living in tiny cabins in Montana where they stockpile weapons and food for the dreaded day when Big Brother comes 'round tryin' to implant fail chips in their brains. I mean, pedophile 13 year old boys? Okay, I can see a paranoid survivalist occasionally fucking some stray dog high up in Montana, but that's basically it. So ED has to resort to fantasizing as in Glenn Beck case (assuming he is a libertarian) instead.
This got me thinking though. As a utilitarian minarchist, I could dismiss the whole issue immediatelly. I don't give a fuck about libertarian principles. If there is to be a legal child market for pedophiles, then fuck it (or more accurately, not fuck it), I prefer collectivism. But then the principles are not that bad anyway. Parents do not own their children. I can't see where that sort of primitive libertarianism even comes from. Also, children do not fully own themselves. That's all according to libertarian principles themselves and this is one of the grey areas where collectivism should kick in and find the most efficient utilitarian approach. Okay, so some children will die from hunger because they can't make a living in any other way than prostitution. But then we'll save so many children from sex abuse. Careful weighing of pros and cons. Problem solved, at least for children and retards (who are basically adult children).
Now, what about dog fucking? Does utilitarianism apply here? But what is utilitarianism really? Doesn't it rely on a hidden assumption of a right to happiness? Utilitarians often claim they do not believe in natural rights. But they do. They believe people have a natural right to happiness. Obviously, liberals/conservatives believe there exist positive rights, while libertarians only acknowledge negative ones. At least as far as humans are concerned. Neither liberals nor conservatives would like a dog to have a positive natural right to happiness though. After all, liberals/conservatives might suddenly find themselves in an awkward situation where a dog has a right to fuck them. This is actually a good illustration why positive rights are BS. Dogs do have a negative right to happiness, so fucking their asses should be illegal on that in fact utilitarian ground, but dogs do not have positive rights, so our own asses are safe too. Unless, I guess some genius can prove dogs love to be raped by other species. Since this seems to be one of our own gratest boogeymen (as any alien abductee can attest), we can easily assume dogs feel the same.
Finally, this brings us to the most common variant of child murder, abortion. Naturally, on utilitarian grounds, it causes more harm than benefit trying to prevent women from killing their unborn children, so we shouldn't. But then libertarian principles are not so pro-life either. If a child's existence was caused by deliberate action, parents would be responsible, and a mother would have an obligation to carry her child to full term. However, sex is a process where organisms form offspring that combine genetic traits from both parents. In other words, our species would have never evolved if sex was something we could choose to perform. We have to perform it, same as breathing, and rational reasoning has little impact on a man when he sees a sexy young coed, or on a woman when she sees a male that can support her offspring. Hence, children are conceived in a heat of passion, parents should not be legally responsible, and mother should not be forced to carry the child to full term. But doesn't that also legitimize child prostitution? After all, pedophiles also act in a heat of passion. No. Note I have nowhere said that a father has a right to fuck its unborn child, only that a mother does not have an obligation to carry her child to full term. Yes, technically the end result is the same as child murder, but the means are different. That's why we also make rape illegal, even though its end result (children) is same as in voluntary sex. Uffff...
As we can see, pedophilia, zoophilia and child murder would all be illegal in a utilitarian minarchist libertarian state, except for abortions, which are not really child murder proper, but rather a legitimate right to not having to carry the child to full term. But exactly same end result we get with libertarian principled approach, at least wherever property rights can actually be defined. In other words, libertarian principles do not support pedophilia, zoophilia and child murder, they are agnostic here and should be extended with utilitarianism so we can also account for children, retards and dogs.
Every libertarian will, sooner or later, be called child/dog fucker/murderer. Interestingly though, according to ED itself, the crimes are always perpetrated by non-libertarians. After all, ED claims libertarians are either 13 year old boys, fratboys who watch South Park, people that want to appear "alternative", or paranoid survivalists living in tiny cabins in Montana where they stockpile weapons and food for the dreaded day when Big Brother comes 'round tryin' to implant fail chips in their brains. I mean, pedophile 13 year old boys? Okay, I can see a paranoid survivalist occasionally fucking some stray dog high up in Montana, but that's basically it. So ED has to resort to fantasizing as in Glenn Beck case (assuming he is a libertarian) instead.
This got me thinking though. As a utilitarian minarchist, I could dismiss the whole issue immediatelly. I don't give a fuck about libertarian principles. If there is to be a legal child market for pedophiles, then fuck it (or more accurately, not fuck it), I prefer collectivism. But then the principles are not that bad anyway. Parents do not own their children. I can't see where that sort of primitive libertarianism even comes from. Also, children do not fully own themselves. That's all according to libertarian principles themselves and this is one of the grey areas where collectivism should kick in and find the most efficient utilitarian approach. Okay, so some children will die from hunger because they can't make a living in any other way than prostitution. But then we'll save so many children from sex abuse. Careful weighing of pros and cons. Problem solved, at least for children and retards (who are basically adult children).
Now, what about dog fucking? Does utilitarianism apply here? But what is utilitarianism really? Doesn't it rely on a hidden assumption of a right to happiness? Utilitarians often claim they do not believe in natural rights. But they do. They believe people have a natural right to happiness. Obviously, liberals/conservatives believe there exist positive rights, while libertarians only acknowledge negative ones. At least as far as humans are concerned. Neither liberals nor conservatives would like a dog to have a positive natural right to happiness though. After all, liberals/conservatives might suddenly find themselves in an awkward situation where a dog has a right to fuck them. This is actually a good illustration why positive rights are BS. Dogs do have a negative right to happiness, so fucking their asses should be illegal on that in fact utilitarian ground, but dogs do not have positive rights, so our own asses are safe too. Unless, I guess some genius can prove dogs love to be raped by other species. Since this seems to be one of our own gratest boogeymen (as any alien abductee can attest), we can easily assume dogs feel the same.
Finally, this brings us to the most common variant of child murder, abortion. Naturally, on utilitarian grounds, it causes more harm than benefit trying to prevent women from killing their unborn children, so we shouldn't. But then libertarian principles are not so pro-life either. If a child's existence was caused by deliberate action, parents would be responsible, and a mother would have an obligation to carry her child to full term. However, sex is a process where organisms form offspring that combine genetic traits from both parents. In other words, our species would have never evolved if sex was something we could choose to perform. We have to perform it, same as breathing, and rational reasoning has little impact on a man when he sees a sexy young coed, or on a woman when she sees a male that can support her offspring. Hence, children are conceived in a heat of passion, parents should not be legally responsible, and mother should not be forced to carry the child to full term. But doesn't that also legitimize child prostitution? After all, pedophiles also act in a heat of passion. No. Note I have nowhere said that a father has a right to fuck its unborn child, only that a mother does not have an obligation to carry her child to full term. Yes, technically the end result is the same as child murder, but the means are different. That's why we also make rape illegal, even though its end result (children) is same as in voluntary sex. Uffff...
As we can see, pedophilia, zoophilia and child murder would all be illegal in a utilitarian minarchist libertarian state, except for abortions, which are not really child murder proper, but rather a legitimate right to not having to carry the child to full term. But exactly same end result we get with libertarian principled approach, at least wherever property rights can actually be defined. In other words, libertarian principles do not support pedophilia, zoophilia and child murder, they are agnostic here and should be extended with utilitarianism so we can also account for children, retards and dogs.
piątek, 18 lutego 2011
Primitive Libertarianism
How a Libertarian Capitalist Became a Libertarian Socialist is a great story on libertarian propaganda failure.
Chris Wilson claims this is a personal story on his "transition from right-wing to left-wing libertarianism". Surprisingly, this is very accurate statement, but likely not as Chris meant it. If someone talks about "right-wing" and "left-wing" libertarianism, then I argue he has never actually parted with the most common fallacies in the first place. I'm not saying there are no "right-wing" and "left-wing" libertarianisms, there obviously are if people say there are, except I call both primitive libertarianisms, no less primitive than "right-wing" and "left-wing" dichotomy in general.
Typically people become libertarian when they get infatuated with Ayn Rand (at least in US), even if just for a short period like in Wilson's case. Now, there is nothing inherently wrong with Ayn Rand fiction. Quite contrary, Rand's a genius, at least as far as Atlas Shrugged or Fountainhead are concerned. They are both very true precisely because they contain relatively little philosophizing, they are simply dramatized morality and psychology stories. They are not just fiction though. I'm sure there have existed many actual persons that closely reflect Rand characters both psychologically and ideologically. It's true it's a relatively fictional world when we consider it from our 2010s perspective, but it is more accurate of say (no wonder), 1930s-1950s when they got published (or derived their inspiration from). Collectivism was then if full swing. Even most businessmen honestly believed all collectivist propaganda. But even then real people must have been significantly muted versions of Rand heroes and antiheroes. Still, Rand nowhere presents their heroes and antiheroes as common stock, there's always the background of indiscriminate masses. And it's a perfectly valid literary technique to focus only on psychological features that matter for whatever reason author deems them to matter, provided they are real psychological features.
However, Atlas Shrugged or Fountainhead are only then (mis)interpreted by many libertarians, including Ayn Rand herself in her Objectivist works. But they are all in fact no different than (mis)interpretations of the real world around us. Objectivism does not quite follow from Atlas Shrugged or Fountainhead, and Atlas Shrugged or Fountainhead are therefore not automatically rebutted (as if you could rebut reality) just because you've rebutted Objectivism. The most important (mis)interpretations of primitive libertarians are as follows:
1) Entrepreneurs have to be honest for the free market to work, that is never deceive customers nor seek government privileges.
2) Objective truth can be determined also on what consumer value scales (human action ends themselves) should be, rather than just on what constitute honest measures to achieve them.
3) Principles should overrule utilitarian arguments when it comes to specific policy recommendations (as opposed to principles in methodology of deducing them).
As for 1), it is evident we would have never achieved modern levels of prosperity if it were true. Entrepreneurs are human, so they habitually deceive customers and virtually always seek government privileges. As it turns out, even being ardent libertarian may not help, see eg this article about Kochtopus. Established entrepreneurs are actually the biggest threat to free markets, bigger even than socialists. Socialists create clear-cut anti-examples, while entrepreneurs, via government privileges, become parasites on what relatively can still be called a free market, but in fact is a collectivist system (corporate socialism) ridden with government aggression.
As for 2), here Rotbard rocks as usual in Mozard Was a Red. I don't think that sort of Randian is actually that popular nowadays though. At least it does not happen to apply to Chris Wilson's case. However, I'm not from US so maybe I underestimate Randian extremism popularity. See eg this American Beauty review. Dude, relax, even trash can be beautiful too, no need to make a libertarian case out of everything out there.
As for 3), I just don't buy this, even as an ardent Rothbard fan. Maybe I'm too stupid for Rothbard, but I still can't help being a utilitarian. I'm perfectly aware that easily 99% of utilitarian arguments out there are false and have been repeatedly used to agitate collectivism. Still, libertarians should "simply" rebut them all and present their own correct utilitarian arguments, rather than throw out the baby with the bath water. If it's a lot more work, so be it. As Albert Einstein, an ardent socialist, has said, make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler. Which also happens to show why we should never accept any argument based on authority only (or reject on lack thereof).
Now we can proceed with Chris Wilson's article to see that he remains as ignorant as he was before the "transition":
"I concluded that one who hoards land is placing a restriction upon the liberty of others to use it or to travel by way of it without justification, and hence the claimant should compensate them by paying a land value tax to earn exclusive rights to it."
I agree with Chris in that there should be real estate tax (see my position). It's easy to tax something though. Chris fails to mention where this money is supposed to go. I'd spend it on the army. But this is secondary, let's assume Chris would simply subsidize some legitimate government investment or process, so we could further lower eg head tax. Cool. I don't like his justification though. I can't really see why it is less legitimate to restrict the liberty of others to travel as oppposed to the liberty of others to use whatever I've produced out of land's fruits previously. I prefer taxes as fees for unavoidable government services, no more, no less, I can't see why there should be any distributive justice. Still, from this argument it is already obvious what Chris will state explicitely later, that "principles always came *first* for me -- not economics." And that's where point 3) applies.
"I did become much more critical of corporations, and I became upset with other libertarians for their lack of focus upon the injustices perpetrated by corporations."
That's a valid critique against some other primitive libertarians, which Kochtopus shows. But then Chris could never become more critical of corporations if he did not share the fallacy from point 1) in the first place.
"I've seen all these companies become just as ruthless as any multinational."
If Chris did not share fallacy from point 1), he would understand it is fallacious to require them not to be ruthless. They should be as ruthless as they can. That should be their highest priority, because it lowers consumer prices, hence raising the standard of living for all. But then:
"the more prosperous of these companies are now seeking to benefit from state privilege"
then later
"If they don't actually receive favors from the state, then it is typically their *aim* to receive them."
Of course, it's only natural. That's why libertarians try to make society aware that only minimal government (rather than "benevolent") is technically unable to grant privileges.
"becoming a hardcore Linux user in the process"
I wonder what exactly Microsoft's state privileges were? Or maybe just because Microsoft became "ruthless" in eliminating competion on the free market? That's precisely what Microsoft should have been doing, maximize its profits, for the sake of the consumers. Historically, it is obvious Microsoft was the victim of government aggression, rather than a beneficiary. Microsoft was even sued just because it wanted to bundle more of Windows components for free. Yes, free products are collectivist boogeyman, because we are informed that once they achieve large market share, their prices will sky rocket leaving society in ruins, even though there has never been a documented case of such fairy tale actually happening before. Note the collectivist threats (in fact again established competition lobby) always concern some indefinite future. As a result, even most businessmen still believe we should have anti-trust bodies, quite like in Rand stories.
"it gave me an appreciation for the extent to which corporations screw their customers"
Right, but then every company can screw their customers. Hence, all other things being equal, companies with best products win. It's analogous to the alledged problem of false advertising propaganda. Every company can lie via false advertising, so all other things being equal, companies with best products win.
"it finally truly sank in that businesses couldn't *care less* about principles"
And it shouldn't, business should care only about profits, otherwise it jeopardizes economic efficiency, rendering whole society poorer.
"those who run the company still think of the employees as a cost to be minimized"
And they should, owners should care only about profits, otherwise they jeopardize economic efficiency, rendering whole society poorer.
"I've taken on many more responsibilities than just tech support, but my wages haven't risen."
Maybe (just maybe) you have been paid too much in the first place. Have you ever asked yourself why not the other way around? Have you ever stopped to worry that it is you who exploited your employer? After all, it's perfectly symmetrical. Maybe your employer thought you were worth more, then found out he could had hired similar employee cheaper. Or maybe you were originally paid right, but then with time your value to your employer kept dropping. Or maybe you were indeed paid too little, it's also possible. Maybe, maybe, maybe. Oh, well, then you should have simply left the company and get your fair price, whatever you believe it should amount to, elsewhere. Reality check!
"The advocates of capitalism believe that one can sign away or sell off one's liberty, whereas anarchists do not."
As a utilitarian, I don't care about people rights. But I believe selling off one's liberty is economically efficient. Slavery, protest collectivists hand in hand with anarcho-capitalists! Right, as if that was the actual problem with 19th century slavery, as if blacks were selling themselves voluntarily on the market, rather than having been first captured by government-licensed slave traders, with their enslavement for life regulated by government legislation. What an ignorance. With such thinking, even Soup Nazi suddenly becomes slavery.
"I didn't realize in my early "anarcho-capitalist" days that capitalists almost always demand more than what the worker initially agrees to give."
Wow, that's pretty fundamental. All summer jobs at your uncle, huh? But you still fail to undestand it's symmetrical. Analogously, workers always demand more (salary) than what the capitalist initially agrees to give. So who is try to exploit who? Both each other. It's only natural. But the free market does not cease to function just because people negotiate, quite contrary, the bargaining is precisely the engine of the free market.
"Jones is entitled to much better"
In that case Jones should get the fuck out and get the so "much better" elsewhere, simple.
"anarcho-communism doesn't provide an avenue for capitalism to reestablish itself and it has had partial revolutionary success in the past histories of countries such as Spain and the Ukraine"
Sure it has. Communists specialize in revolutions. They are always successfull. Communism/socialism inherent problems are not in revolutions though, but in economic calculation problems after revolutions.
"On one hand, there are the anarcho-primitivist luddites who eschew all forms of complex technology and wish to return to a hunter-gather society, and on the other, there are the anarchists who feel that technology can be beneficial if its development is directed by workers themselves in a manner that is accountable to the communities it affects."
I can't really see a difference between the two. If you accept technology only after it has been somehow deemed "beneficial" to someone by someone (how exactly?), established businesses (via guilds, regulation bodies, etc) in practice start to dictate which new technologies can be implemented and how. Obviously, none, because each new technology causes many companies go bankrupt and many people lose their jobs. It's a lot of pain. That's why the Middle Ages people thought they could well do without the pain. And they did, for a 1000 years. That's also why communism is just an atheist form of feudalism, and that's why Industrial Revolution was not started by religious communists like Anabaptists or first American pioneers, but by a classical liberal realisation of the benefits of free trade competition, even as primitively formulated as it was at the time.
"Working within the computer industry, I also understand that when technological complexity transcends our ability to understand it, this is an instance of the machine being in control of us and not vice-versa."
Rather, you have simply watched too much sci-fi. Also, I would never hire you as a programmer. Sorry, boss, this system's technological complexity tanscends my ability to understand it, it has just started to control me rather than vice versa. Wow, impressive. You should take some time off, looks like you're losing it. Also, get a book on object oriented programming.
"Whether technology is a form of liberation or domination is a topic hotly debated by anarchists"
No doubt they have many ratarded discussions. Technology is merely a tool. A conscious person uses tools as means to achieve ends. Now, some tools may indeed be better suited to achieve liberation vs domination ends, but it is ultimately up to the conscious person what ends she chooses for herself. Arguably we have had a perfectly libertarian state in 10th century Iceland and a perfectly communist state in 20th century Cambodia.
"but they agree, contra the right-wing "libertarians", that a society in which human-created circumstances force people to "agree" to subject their will to that of a boss is by no means "free". "
Before you start another revolution, can't you just call 911 when someone forces you to subject your will?
Chris Wilson claims this is a personal story on his "transition from right-wing to left-wing libertarianism". Surprisingly, this is very accurate statement, but likely not as Chris meant it. If someone talks about "right-wing" and "left-wing" libertarianism, then I argue he has never actually parted with the most common fallacies in the first place. I'm not saying there are no "right-wing" and "left-wing" libertarianisms, there obviously are if people say there are, except I call both primitive libertarianisms, no less primitive than "right-wing" and "left-wing" dichotomy in general.
Typically people become libertarian when they get infatuated with Ayn Rand (at least in US), even if just for a short period like in Wilson's case. Now, there is nothing inherently wrong with Ayn Rand fiction. Quite contrary, Rand's a genius, at least as far as Atlas Shrugged or Fountainhead are concerned. They are both very true precisely because they contain relatively little philosophizing, they are simply dramatized morality and psychology stories. They are not just fiction though. I'm sure there have existed many actual persons that closely reflect Rand characters both psychologically and ideologically. It's true it's a relatively fictional world when we consider it from our 2010s perspective, but it is more accurate of say (no wonder), 1930s-1950s when they got published (or derived their inspiration from). Collectivism was then if full swing. Even most businessmen honestly believed all collectivist propaganda. But even then real people must have been significantly muted versions of Rand heroes and antiheroes. Still, Rand nowhere presents their heroes and antiheroes as common stock, there's always the background of indiscriminate masses. And it's a perfectly valid literary technique to focus only on psychological features that matter for whatever reason author deems them to matter, provided they are real psychological features.
However, Atlas Shrugged or Fountainhead are only then (mis)interpreted by many libertarians, including Ayn Rand herself in her Objectivist works. But they are all in fact no different than (mis)interpretations of the real world around us. Objectivism does not quite follow from Atlas Shrugged or Fountainhead, and Atlas Shrugged or Fountainhead are therefore not automatically rebutted (as if you could rebut reality) just because you've rebutted Objectivism. The most important (mis)interpretations of primitive libertarians are as follows:
1) Entrepreneurs have to be honest for the free market to work, that is never deceive customers nor seek government privileges.
2) Objective truth can be determined also on what consumer value scales (human action ends themselves) should be, rather than just on what constitute honest measures to achieve them.
3) Principles should overrule utilitarian arguments when it comes to specific policy recommendations (as opposed to principles in methodology of deducing them).
As for 1), it is evident we would have never achieved modern levels of prosperity if it were true. Entrepreneurs are human, so they habitually deceive customers and virtually always seek government privileges. As it turns out, even being ardent libertarian may not help, see eg this article about Kochtopus. Established entrepreneurs are actually the biggest threat to free markets, bigger even than socialists. Socialists create clear-cut anti-examples, while entrepreneurs, via government privileges, become parasites on what relatively can still be called a free market, but in fact is a collectivist system (corporate socialism) ridden with government aggression.
As for 2), here Rotbard rocks as usual in Mozard Was a Red. I don't think that sort of Randian is actually that popular nowadays though. At least it does not happen to apply to Chris Wilson's case. However, I'm not from US so maybe I underestimate Randian extremism popularity. See eg this American Beauty review. Dude, relax, even trash can be beautiful too, no need to make a libertarian case out of everything out there.
As for 3), I just don't buy this, even as an ardent Rothbard fan. Maybe I'm too stupid for Rothbard, but I still can't help being a utilitarian. I'm perfectly aware that easily 99% of utilitarian arguments out there are false and have been repeatedly used to agitate collectivism. Still, libertarians should "simply" rebut them all and present their own correct utilitarian arguments, rather than throw out the baby with the bath water. If it's a lot more work, so be it. As Albert Einstein, an ardent socialist, has said, make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler. Which also happens to show why we should never accept any argument based on authority only (or reject on lack thereof).
Now we can proceed with Chris Wilson's article to see that he remains as ignorant as he was before the "transition":
"I concluded that one who hoards land is placing a restriction upon the liberty of others to use it or to travel by way of it without justification, and hence the claimant should compensate them by paying a land value tax to earn exclusive rights to it."
I agree with Chris in that there should be real estate tax (see my position). It's easy to tax something though. Chris fails to mention where this money is supposed to go. I'd spend it on the army. But this is secondary, let's assume Chris would simply subsidize some legitimate government investment or process, so we could further lower eg head tax. Cool. I don't like his justification though. I can't really see why it is less legitimate to restrict the liberty of others to travel as oppposed to the liberty of others to use whatever I've produced out of land's fruits previously. I prefer taxes as fees for unavoidable government services, no more, no less, I can't see why there should be any distributive justice. Still, from this argument it is already obvious what Chris will state explicitely later, that "principles always came *first* for me -- not economics." And that's where point 3) applies.
"I did become much more critical of corporations, and I became upset with other libertarians for their lack of focus upon the injustices perpetrated by corporations."
That's a valid critique against some other primitive libertarians, which Kochtopus shows. But then Chris could never become more critical of corporations if he did not share the fallacy from point 1) in the first place.
"I've seen all these companies become just as ruthless as any multinational."
If Chris did not share fallacy from point 1), he would understand it is fallacious to require them not to be ruthless. They should be as ruthless as they can. That should be their highest priority, because it lowers consumer prices, hence raising the standard of living for all. But then:
"the more prosperous of these companies are now seeking to benefit from state privilege"
then later
"If they don't actually receive favors from the state, then it is typically their *aim* to receive them."
Of course, it's only natural. That's why libertarians try to make society aware that only minimal government (rather than "benevolent") is technically unable to grant privileges.
"becoming a hardcore Linux user in the process"
I wonder what exactly Microsoft's state privileges were? Or maybe just because Microsoft became "ruthless" in eliminating competion on the free market? That's precisely what Microsoft should have been doing, maximize its profits, for the sake of the consumers. Historically, it is obvious Microsoft was the victim of government aggression, rather than a beneficiary. Microsoft was even sued just because it wanted to bundle more of Windows components for free. Yes, free products are collectivist boogeyman, because we are informed that once they achieve large market share, their prices will sky rocket leaving society in ruins, even though there has never been a documented case of such fairy tale actually happening before. Note the collectivist threats (in fact again established competition lobby) always concern some indefinite future. As a result, even most businessmen still believe we should have anti-trust bodies, quite like in Rand stories.
"it gave me an appreciation for the extent to which corporations screw their customers"
Right, but then every company can screw their customers. Hence, all other things being equal, companies with best products win. It's analogous to the alledged problem of false advertising propaganda. Every company can lie via false advertising, so all other things being equal, companies with best products win.
"it finally truly sank in that businesses couldn't *care less* about principles"
And it shouldn't, business should care only about profits, otherwise it jeopardizes economic efficiency, rendering whole society poorer.
"those who run the company still think of the employees as a cost to be minimized"
And they should, owners should care only about profits, otherwise they jeopardize economic efficiency, rendering whole society poorer.
"I've taken on many more responsibilities than just tech support, but my wages haven't risen."
Maybe (just maybe) you have been paid too much in the first place. Have you ever asked yourself why not the other way around? Have you ever stopped to worry that it is you who exploited your employer? After all, it's perfectly symmetrical. Maybe your employer thought you were worth more, then found out he could had hired similar employee cheaper. Or maybe you were originally paid right, but then with time your value to your employer kept dropping. Or maybe you were indeed paid too little, it's also possible. Maybe, maybe, maybe. Oh, well, then you should have simply left the company and get your fair price, whatever you believe it should amount to, elsewhere. Reality check!
"The advocates of capitalism believe that one can sign away or sell off one's liberty, whereas anarchists do not."
As a utilitarian, I don't care about people rights. But I believe selling off one's liberty is economically efficient. Slavery, protest collectivists hand in hand with anarcho-capitalists! Right, as if that was the actual problem with 19th century slavery, as if blacks were selling themselves voluntarily on the market, rather than having been first captured by government-licensed slave traders, with their enslavement for life regulated by government legislation. What an ignorance. With such thinking, even Soup Nazi suddenly becomes slavery.
"I didn't realize in my early "anarcho-capitalist" days that capitalists almost always demand more than what the worker initially agrees to give."
Wow, that's pretty fundamental. All summer jobs at your uncle, huh? But you still fail to undestand it's symmetrical. Analogously, workers always demand more (salary) than what the capitalist initially agrees to give. So who is try to exploit who? Both each other. It's only natural. But the free market does not cease to function just because people negotiate, quite contrary, the bargaining is precisely the engine of the free market.
"Jones is entitled to much better"
In that case Jones should get the fuck out and get the so "much better" elsewhere, simple.
"anarcho-communism doesn't provide an avenue for capitalism to reestablish itself and it has had partial revolutionary success in the past histories of countries such as Spain and the Ukraine"
Sure it has. Communists specialize in revolutions. They are always successfull. Communism/socialism inherent problems are not in revolutions though, but in economic calculation problems after revolutions.
"On one hand, there are the anarcho-primitivist luddites who eschew all forms of complex technology and wish to return to a hunter-gather society, and on the other, there are the anarchists who feel that technology can be beneficial if its development is directed by workers themselves in a manner that is accountable to the communities it affects."
I can't really see a difference between the two. If you accept technology only after it has been somehow deemed "beneficial" to someone by someone (how exactly?), established businesses (via guilds, regulation bodies, etc) in practice start to dictate which new technologies can be implemented and how. Obviously, none, because each new technology causes many companies go bankrupt and many people lose their jobs. It's a lot of pain. That's why the Middle Ages people thought they could well do without the pain. And they did, for a 1000 years. That's also why communism is just an atheist form of feudalism, and that's why Industrial Revolution was not started by religious communists like Anabaptists or first American pioneers, but by a classical liberal realisation of the benefits of free trade competition, even as primitively formulated as it was at the time.
"Working within the computer industry, I also understand that when technological complexity transcends our ability to understand it, this is an instance of the machine being in control of us and not vice-versa."
Rather, you have simply watched too much sci-fi. Also, I would never hire you as a programmer. Sorry, boss, this system's technological complexity tanscends my ability to understand it, it has just started to control me rather than vice versa. Wow, impressive. You should take some time off, looks like you're losing it. Also, get a book on object oriented programming.
"Whether technology is a form of liberation or domination is a topic hotly debated by anarchists"
No doubt they have many ratarded discussions. Technology is merely a tool. A conscious person uses tools as means to achieve ends. Now, some tools may indeed be better suited to achieve liberation vs domination ends, but it is ultimately up to the conscious person what ends she chooses for herself. Arguably we have had a perfectly libertarian state in 10th century Iceland and a perfectly communist state in 20th century Cambodia.
"but they agree, contra the right-wing "libertarians", that a society in which human-created circumstances force people to "agree" to subject their will to that of a boss is by no means "free". "
Before you start another revolution, can't you just call 911 when someone forces you to subject your will?
czwartek, 17 lutego 2011
Summary of Mike Huben's Critiques of Austrian Economics
Looks like I've basically finished all the links of interest (to a Misesian like me) from Mike Huben's index:
http://world.std.com/~mhuben/austrian.html
I've done Bryan Caplan, Paul Krugman, John Quiggin, Steve Kangas and Mike Huben himself in my earlier posts. All the other links are not worthy separate ones, so let's do them here.
Going from top to bottom, the first link I've not yet discussed is Scrooge Defended, "Michael Levin's Austrian Economics perspective on Dickens, so Panglossian and full of stacked assumptions that it is howlingly funny". Mike must have been really desparate, providing "funny" article from http://www.mises.org/ as a "critique of Austrian Economics".
Then follow 5 Hayek critiques, including one written by anarcho-capitalist Hans-Hermann Hoppe (poor Mike, just when I thought he could not get any more desparate). As a Misesian, for all I care, the more correct they are, the better.
Next there is An Austrian (Mis)Reads Adam Smith: A Critique of Rothbard as Intellectual Historian, which is interesting, though irrelevant. Basically, Peter Hans Matthews argues that Smith was not quite as bad as Rothbard painted him. In fact, Peter argues, one can even interpret Smith was aware of entrepreneurs after all... Okay, maybe he was, maybe he wasn't. So how does that exactly constitute a "critique of Austrian Economics"?
I let myself skip a link to "an outstanding page of criticisms, including luminaries such as David Friedman, Gordon Tullock, and Robert Nozick", same as later "index of books and articles criticizing Austrian Economics", I trust Mike, if he does not grant them direct links, they shouldn't be too relevant (especially when many links he does provide are irrelevant). But I no longer think Mike is desparate, rather, perfectly indiscriminate. He hates "libertarianism" so much that he can call the most ardent free-traders (and even anarcho-capitalists like David Friedman) "luminaries", provided they at least once criticise some other free-traders or libertarians on anything.
For Mises' Sake is an article by Tom G. Palmer who "savages Llewellyn Rockwell, the Ludwig von Mises Institute and Hans-Hermann Hoppe for Austrianism above and beyond the call of sanity." I have tried to read this, but see for yourself, this seems to be very personal, chaotic rant about Habsburgs, King of Spain, Hitler, Jews, Turkish invasion of Central Europe, Emperor Franz Joseph's and Kim Il Sung... I suspect Tom G. Palmer is psychically unstable.
The Social Welfare State, beyond Ideology is where Jeffry Sachs shows us "how social welfare states do as well as or better than low-tax, high-income countries". So what, correlation is not causation. Sure, rich states can afford to waste taxpayers money on welfare programs, that's all there is to it. And Jeffry Sachs forgets socialist countries have always had the most advanced welfare programs out there (with guaranteed jobs, even).
Now there is Some Capital-Theoretic Fallacies of Austrian Economics, where "Robert Vienneau attacks assumptions of Austrian Business Cycle Theory. Highly technical." Highly technical ideed. Let me quote:
3.0 Critique of Austrian Theory with a Detailed Example
Consider an entrepreneur who perceives the economy, or at least the markets he is
most concerned with, to be tending towards an Evenly Rotating Economy
The fuck??? Robert Vienneau, time for sanity check, real world to ivory tower, please hit your head against the wall then come back.
Then two more critiques of Hayek, very good.
Finally, Mike blesses us with An Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought critique, where Tony Endres calls it "highly jaundiced and purblind." Go ahead, read the "critique", it's fun. What Tony actually does, he simply repeats about 50 times (count for yourself) that Rothbard's work is ("unashamedly", I like this one best)... an Austrian Perspective, rather than a Liberal Perspective. Tony evidently assumes Austrian views are something you should be "ashamed" for.
That's it. Mike has spent 16 years to collect Critiques of Austrian Economics. 16 years. I have to congratulate Mike on all his work again (apart from my previous thank-you). There is no better place where one can evidently see how ineffectual all the "critiques" of Austrian School are. It's like when I always pray (even though I'm an atheist) for new socialist countries, because they are the best examples there can ever be of collectivist thinking dismal failure. Same for Mike's Critiques of Austrian Economics. Let us all pray there are more people like Mike.
http://world.std.com/~mhuben/austrian.html
I've done Bryan Caplan, Paul Krugman, John Quiggin, Steve Kangas and Mike Huben himself in my earlier posts. All the other links are not worthy separate ones, so let's do them here.
Going from top to bottom, the first link I've not yet discussed is Scrooge Defended, "Michael Levin's Austrian Economics perspective on Dickens, so Panglossian and full of stacked assumptions that it is howlingly funny". Mike must have been really desparate, providing "funny" article from http://www.mises.org/ as a "critique of Austrian Economics".
Then follow 5 Hayek critiques, including one written by anarcho-capitalist Hans-Hermann Hoppe (poor Mike, just when I thought he could not get any more desparate). As a Misesian, for all I care, the more correct they are, the better.
Next there is An Austrian (Mis)Reads Adam Smith: A Critique of Rothbard as Intellectual Historian, which is interesting, though irrelevant. Basically, Peter Hans Matthews argues that Smith was not quite as bad as Rothbard painted him. In fact, Peter argues, one can even interpret Smith was aware of entrepreneurs after all... Okay, maybe he was, maybe he wasn't. So how does that exactly constitute a "critique of Austrian Economics"?
I let myself skip a link to "an outstanding page of criticisms, including luminaries such as David Friedman, Gordon Tullock, and Robert Nozick", same as later "index of books and articles criticizing Austrian Economics", I trust Mike, if he does not grant them direct links, they shouldn't be too relevant (especially when many links he does provide are irrelevant). But I no longer think Mike is desparate, rather, perfectly indiscriminate. He hates "libertarianism" so much that he can call the most ardent free-traders (and even anarcho-capitalists like David Friedman) "luminaries", provided they at least once criticise some other free-traders or libertarians on anything.
For Mises' Sake is an article by Tom G. Palmer who "savages Llewellyn Rockwell, the Ludwig von Mises Institute and Hans-Hermann Hoppe for Austrianism above and beyond the call of sanity." I have tried to read this, but see for yourself, this seems to be very personal, chaotic rant about Habsburgs, King of Spain, Hitler, Jews, Turkish invasion of Central Europe, Emperor Franz Joseph's and Kim Il Sung... I suspect Tom G. Palmer is psychically unstable.
The Social Welfare State, beyond Ideology is where Jeffry Sachs shows us "how social welfare states do as well as or better than low-tax, high-income countries". So what, correlation is not causation. Sure, rich states can afford to waste taxpayers money on welfare programs, that's all there is to it. And Jeffry Sachs forgets socialist countries have always had the most advanced welfare programs out there (with guaranteed jobs, even).
Now there is Some Capital-Theoretic Fallacies of Austrian Economics, where "Robert Vienneau attacks assumptions of Austrian Business Cycle Theory. Highly technical." Highly technical ideed. Let me quote:
3.0 Critique of Austrian Theory with a Detailed Example
Consider an entrepreneur who perceives the economy, or at least the markets he is
most concerned with, to be tending towards an Evenly Rotating Economy
The fuck??? Robert Vienneau, time for sanity check, real world to ivory tower, please hit your head against the wall then come back.
Then two more critiques of Hayek, very good.
Finally, Mike blesses us with An Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought critique, where Tony Endres calls it "highly jaundiced and purblind." Go ahead, read the "critique", it's fun. What Tony actually does, he simply repeats about 50 times (count for yourself) that Rothbard's work is ("unashamedly", I like this one best)... an Austrian Perspective, rather than a Liberal Perspective. Tony evidently assumes Austrian views are something you should be "ashamed" for.
That's it. Mike has spent 16 years to collect Critiques of Austrian Economics. 16 years. I have to congratulate Mike on all his work again (apart from my previous thank-you). There is no better place where one can evidently see how ineffectual all the "critiques" of Austrian School are. It's like when I always pray (even though I'm an atheist) for new socialist countries, because they are the best examples there can ever be of collectivist thinking dismal failure. Same for Mike's Critiques of Austrian Economics. Let us all pray there are more people like Mike.
Mike Huben goes philosophical
One of the links in Mike Huben's index of critiques of Austrian Economics points to his own post:
http://critiquesoflibertarianism.blogspot.com/2009/05/parable-of-ship-why-austrian-economics.html
Austrian Economics is allegedly unscientific because it "has a methodological disrespect of data". Strange statement for a math teacher. After all, mathematics also has a methodological disrespect of data. Is math also unscientific then? Mike does not say.
Then follows the parable of the ship. The owner of the ship fails to identify the most important causes of his ship sinking, so the ship sinks. Analogously, according to Mike, Austrians fail to identify the most important causes of problems like "inflation or disease or whatever", because they have a methodological disrespect of data.
Mike does not seem to understand what "methodological disrespect of data" is. Mathematics theory also has a methodological disrespect of data, but does it mean mathematics cannot be used to interpret data? Of course it can, it is the most accurate tool to interpret data concerning unconscious matter out there. Analogously, Austrian Economics theory has methodological disrespect of data, but still is the most accurate tool to interpret conscious action data out there. Mathematics is so useful to interpret data precisely because it has methodological disrespect of data. Otherwise it would be specific data dependent, hence useless in most applications. But mathematics is data independent. Same for Austrian Economics. It is independent of real world data, so it can be safely used for accurate interpretation of any real world data that concerns conscious action.
It is therefore true that "Austrianism is staunchly against measurement", because measurement is "philosophically invalid", for the purpose of validating theory. However, to say Austrian Economists do "not use measurement" just because they don't need data to validate their economics theory, is same as to say that mathematicians do "not use measurement" because they don't need data to validate their math theory. What an ignorance. Austrians do analyze and interpret real world data, just read virtually any article at http://www.mises.org/
Mike goes on to say that "since Austrians are innumerate, instead they must rely on their assumptions". No, Austrians rely on their self-evident assumptions and logical conclusions precisely to be able to accurately interpret numerical data out there.
Then we read that "no assumption about the real world is totally true". Mike demands "total" truth, whatever that means. Sure, maybe we all live in a Matrix with our whole lives programmed, who knows. Still, I personally think it is useful to make a working assumption we don't. I don't really need "total" philosophical truth. There is only one such truth, ie that we exist, in some form. But there is nothing really useful you can deduce from it. So in addition to that "total" one truth, I also believe, for example, that people prefer leisure to work. In other words, this truth is "total" enough for me.
Mike agitates further that "you MUST introduce measurement and mathematics into your models if you want to have any hope of valid answers." No, you must precisely NOT introduce measurement into your models if you want your models to be measurement independent.
Finally, surprisingly, Mike says a very true statement that "logical verbal models are sufficient to specify possible chains (or networks) of causation, but telling which are significant is a quantitative problem that requires measurement." Perfect! Looks like Mike again does not seem to understand what he fights against...
Mike ends his article with a quote from... David Hume, while, as TheLowlyPhilosopher in one of the comments noted, "the main contribution to modern philosophy that Hume is known for is his argument against the certainty of induction and thus science. Hume famously is known for his argument that just because the Sun has risen for billions of years we cannot be certain that it will rise tomorrow. We cannot derive certainty from scientific observations (induction). Thus Hume rejected the idea that science and induction could give us absolute knowledge only probable knowledge." Precisely!
http://critiquesoflibertarianism.blogspot.com/2009/05/parable-of-ship-why-austrian-economics.html
Austrian Economics is allegedly unscientific because it "has a methodological disrespect of data". Strange statement for a math teacher. After all, mathematics also has a methodological disrespect of data. Is math also unscientific then? Mike does not say.
Then follows the parable of the ship. The owner of the ship fails to identify the most important causes of his ship sinking, so the ship sinks. Analogously, according to Mike, Austrians fail to identify the most important causes of problems like "inflation or disease or whatever", because they have a methodological disrespect of data.
Mike does not seem to understand what "methodological disrespect of data" is. Mathematics theory also has a methodological disrespect of data, but does it mean mathematics cannot be used to interpret data? Of course it can, it is the most accurate tool to interpret data concerning unconscious matter out there. Analogously, Austrian Economics theory has methodological disrespect of data, but still is the most accurate tool to interpret conscious action data out there. Mathematics is so useful to interpret data precisely because it has methodological disrespect of data. Otherwise it would be specific data dependent, hence useless in most applications. But mathematics is data independent. Same for Austrian Economics. It is independent of real world data, so it can be safely used for accurate interpretation of any real world data that concerns conscious action.
It is therefore true that "Austrianism is staunchly against measurement", because measurement is "philosophically invalid", for the purpose of validating theory. However, to say Austrian Economists do "not use measurement" just because they don't need data to validate their economics theory, is same as to say that mathematicians do "not use measurement" because they don't need data to validate their math theory. What an ignorance. Austrians do analyze and interpret real world data, just read virtually any article at http://www.mises.org/
Mike goes on to say that "since Austrians are innumerate, instead they must rely on their assumptions". No, Austrians rely on their self-evident assumptions and logical conclusions precisely to be able to accurately interpret numerical data out there.
Then we read that "no assumption about the real world is totally true". Mike demands "total" truth, whatever that means. Sure, maybe we all live in a Matrix with our whole lives programmed, who knows. Still, I personally think it is useful to make a working assumption we don't. I don't really need "total" philosophical truth. There is only one such truth, ie that we exist, in some form. But there is nothing really useful you can deduce from it. So in addition to that "total" one truth, I also believe, for example, that people prefer leisure to work. In other words, this truth is "total" enough for me.
Mike agitates further that "you MUST introduce measurement and mathematics into your models if you want to have any hope of valid answers." No, you must precisely NOT introduce measurement into your models if you want your models to be measurement independent.
Finally, surprisingly, Mike says a very true statement that "logical verbal models are sufficient to specify possible chains (or networks) of causation, but telling which are significant is a quantitative problem that requires measurement." Perfect! Looks like Mike again does not seem to understand what he fights against...
Mike ends his article with a quote from... David Hume, while, as TheLowlyPhilosopher in one of the comments noted, "the main contribution to modern philosophy that Hume is known for is his argument against the certainty of induction and thus science. Hume famously is known for his argument that just because the Sun has risen for billions of years we cannot be certain that it will rise tomorrow. We cannot derive certainty from scientific observations (induction). Thus Hume rejected the idea that science and induction could give us absolute knowledge only probable knowledge." Precisely!
Subskrybuj:
Posty (Atom)