tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post1089421191730746999..comments2024-03-18T21:52:45.757-07:00Comments on CONTRARY BRIN: Is Libertarianism Fundamentally about Competition? Or about Property?David Brinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comBlogger252125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-59814065270815616502018-12-10T17:17:52.298-08:002018-12-10T17:17:52.298-08:00Your point as to sports is actually simpler than t...Your point as to sports is actually simpler than that.<br />A sport is not one game. It's an ongoing series of games.<br />Break the rules or be a sore looser or worse yet a gloating winner, people stop wanting to play with you.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10136207483545499324noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-15838280774206912132018-12-10T15:09:56.343-08:002018-12-10T15:09:56.343-08:00It may not just be about competition. But competi...It may not just be about competition. But competition is very deeply wired into the human animal. Ignore it at your own risk.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10136207483545499324noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-25591378374219674082012-07-02T14:21:39.425-07:002012-07-02T14:21:39.425-07:00Seems to me that transparency automatically brings...Seems to me that transparency automatically brings with it a burden of (regulatory) oversight.<br /><br />If private entities aren't already disclosing XYZ and have to be coerced into doing so ... doesn't that imply larger government?isomorphismeshttp://isomorphismes.tumblr.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-51202139939079400182012-03-31T06:23:26.802-07:002012-03-31T06:23:26.802-07:00To ask if Libertarianism is fundamentally about Pr...To ask if Libertarianism is fundamentally about Property or Competition is to miss the point, and to demonstrate a fundamental ignorance about it. What is most centric, fundamental to the libertarian philosophy is neither property nor competition, even though these are valid and accepted effects of its most core principle.<br /><br />That is what is being overlooked in this sophisticated propaganda piece. All aspects of liberty regarding property, capital, competition, or property emerge as subordinate 'effects' of their primary cause. What is this primary cause of these effects? NAP. The non-aggression principle.<br /><br />Competition:<br />To compete with others is just the result of individual persons interacting in an environment of scarce resources. This has happened for all organisms since the beginning of life. However, to compete without initiating force against other persons is only possible as an -effect- of accepting NAP. This is market competition by definition. We recognize that because humans are capable of interacting in this way as we reap the rewards on a daily basis. The rewards are as simple as human trade, and I don't think I must list what has been made possible by human trade. Yet it must be recognized that human trade/market competition is an -effect- of libertarian core NAP, not an isolated, non-libertarian philosophical concept or even a fundamental libertarian pillar.<br /><br />Property:<br />Again, property is not a core principle of libertarian philosophy, it is yet another -effect- of NAP, coupled with objective requirements of living organisms. To lightly touch on the argument: You have requirements to live, and to act upon fulfilling these requirements without initiating force against other persons results in justification of property rights. Property is either originally appropriated, or voluntarily exchanged as a result of accepting NAP, the libertarian core principle.<br /><br />Conclusively:<br />Property and competition are both arguably the most obvious effects of accepting core libertarian thought, but to suggest that is what fundamentally composes libertarian philosophy is to demonstrate ignorance of libertarianism.Alexhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16502910971167808302noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-64580744714895943562012-03-22T06:41:48.841-07:002012-03-22T06:41:48.841-07:00A question to any non Stephan Kinsella libertarian...A question to any non Stephan Kinsella libertarians out there. Are you happy having him talk for you, or would you rather he kept well away. To me, he makes neither an attractive or convincing spokesperson. He may go well in the echo chamber, but I don't think his style is at all appropriate here. How do you feel about it?reasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10958786975015285323noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-91684708986432389102012-03-21T06:03:15.621-07:002012-03-21T06:03:15.621-07:00And the bit about ceterus parabus (specifically to...And the bit about ceterus parabus (specifically to do with minimum wages) before from Stephan Kinsella, was a bit strange. Ceterus parabus reasoning - means that I am deliberately doing a partial analysis. There can be disagreements, in a complex system like economics deal with, in just how partial that analysis can be and still be relevant. His argument just makes him look silly. (I'm sure he isn't - even clever people can use silly arguments.)reasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10958786975015285323noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-26079992427172227652012-03-21T04:16:21.755-07:002012-03-21T04:16:21.755-07:00"Only force can interfere with competition, s..."Only force can interfere with competition, so these two are easily seen as tautological. "<br /><br />Simply not true - simple (and common) increasing returns to scale, monopoly ownership of vital resources or significant barriers to entry will do.reasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10958786975015285323noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-61704810007536546972012-03-21T04:10:28.504-07:002012-03-21T04:10:28.504-07:00Outside the box
"On to point 2: I've read...Outside the box<br />"On to point 2: I've read this entire bible-length thread (whew) and seen you reference many times the notion that "private property is what has enabled oppression etc throughout history." I still don't really "get it", though."<br /><br />You seem to missed this:<br />rewinn<br />"necessitous men are not, truly speaking, free men, but, to answer a present exigency, will submit to any terms that the crafty may impose upon them." <br /><br />That is absolutely the key point!reasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10958786975015285323noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-10447259478189177032012-03-21T01:42:57.273-07:002012-03-21T01:42:57.273-07:00Look, the problem with any scientific reasoning is...Look, the problem with any scientific reasoning is not usually logical inconsistancy (although that happens) it is mostly incompleteness.<br /><br />Think for instance of the "law of supply and demand" (i.e. demand falls with price and supply rises with price). Well there are goods where demand rises with price (Giffen goods) and goods where supply falls with price (scarce resources). And the reason is of course that there is not just a substitution effect, but also an income effect. Similarly, if is fairly well known that even well behaved individual supply and demand curves of heterogenous individuals and firms don't necessarily add up to well behaved collective supply and demand curves (the aggegation problems). So simple reasoning from first principles can be misleading. What usually points this out is empirical verification. Cut this out and important inaccuracy is almost inevitable.reasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10958786975015285323noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-45507745912569704152012-03-21T01:37:08.817-07:002012-03-21T01:37:08.817-07:00True believers, with their self-referential system...True believers, with their self-referential systems are so boring. Doesn't he realise that to some extent Hayek, and to a much larger extent Mises and Hoppe are often wrong. Inevitably. They are humans.<br /><br />Who does he think he is kidding with his bluster?reasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10958786975015285323noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-23306546096140261682012-03-21T01:27:37.700-07:002012-03-21T01:27:37.700-07:00"Read your Hayek and Mises and Hoppe, and you..."Read your Hayek and Mises and Hoppe, and you will see the manifest problems of scientism. "<br /><br />Or maybe I'll just see the manifest problems with Hayek and Mises and Hoppe? Doesn't that worry you?reasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10958786975015285323noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-49507916117440475972012-03-17T14:43:11.145-07:002012-03-17T14:43:11.145-07:00Brin,
I completely agree with your position on co...Brin,<br /><br />I completely agree with your position on competition. And there is no conflict with either the N.A.P. (Non-aggression Principle) or property. Only force can interfere with competition, so these two are easily seen as tautological. The only trouble the only conflict the only compromise happens when the absurd privilege of homestead is introduced. Ask a homesteader how much labor converts into how much property and they can never give an answer because the concept is nothing but the bare assertion of privilege. And once that poison pill is swallowed then force and all its problems are concealed. <br /><br />Here is a simple proof that shows how property derives from freedom but, does not, can not include homestead.<br /><br />"Homestead" is the madness of the libertarians.<br /><br />http://mises.org/Community/forums/p/28533/461303.aspx#461303Jonathan Hallnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-76330575432436613072012-02-08T15:48:23.900-08:002012-02-08T15:48:23.900-08:00I'm going to pick one relatively unimportant n...I'm going to pick one relatively unimportant nit, and then ask for some references:<br /><br />David, your article is titled and its thrust is "what should libertarianism be about", and you conclude that it should be about enhancing competition.<br /><br />I'm interested in this theme of how important it is to enhance competition, but I'm just not sure it's very constructive to try to call that "libertarianism". Seems to me that libertarianism already has a definition: it's advocacy of the absence of the initiation of force.<br /><br />Thus, I'm not sure it's productive to try to repurpose "libertarianism" to mean what you want it to mean. As you've seen here, mostly that's going to result in squabbling with those who use the definition I give above.<br /><br />Can you call your advocacy for libertarianism something else, as a way to better focus folks' attention on what you are trying to say, rather than squabbling about definitions?<br /><br />On to point 2: I've read this entire bible-length thread (whew) and seen you reference many times the notion that "private property is what has enabled oppression etc throughout history." I still don't really "get it", though. Could you or your folks here point me at what you think is the best exposition of this notion? I totally get your passion on this point and as someone interested in a peaceful, thriving world, I certainly don't want to advocate something that is actually working *against* my desired ends... but largely, that's the claim *I* make to those advocating the state/government: you're working against your own desired ends (my current advocacy - of course I'm willing to change as I learn more - is, like Stephan, anarcho-capitalism). So I get the structure of what you are trying to convey, just not the logic behind your interpretation of the historical record.<br /><br />I'm also still pretty unclear on your suggested alternative. When I asked you that earlier in this thread, the only thing you referenced was a strict inheritance tax. I hope you can understand how I see that as somewhat incomplete. Is that the only deviation from a "capitalist's" definition of property that you advocate, or is there something significantly more? Does the state's duties end at making sure the inheritance tax is implemented, or does the state take on considerably more duties? If the latter, how are they related to the issues of property that you are talking about?<br /><br />The heartening thing is that when you scratch most political "philosophies", including yours and anarcho-capitalism (which is really just a subbrand of "libertarianism", one that extends the notion of non-aggression to the concept of the state and concludes that the state is by definition aggression (I can try to expand on this if you're interested), in many cases you seem the same goals of a peaceful and happy world. The disheartening thing is that people from the many camps of "libertarianism" cannot freaking have discourse with each other without it devolving into insults. We're all trying to get to the same place; why we need to argue about various philosphical purities instead of focusing on our common goals and how to join together to reach them is the reason that bullies, thugs, murderers, rapists etc are laughing at our self-destructive squabbling.Outside the Boxnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-63575102499031673442012-01-27T08:30:44.448-08:002012-01-27T08:30:44.448-08:00@ Stephan Kinsella said...
"True economics ....@ Stephan Kinsella said...<br /><br /><i>"True economics .."</i><br /><br />...your "normative/teleological economics"? <br /><br />Do you deny that there is a positive science called "economics" with data collection, testing etc? <br /><br />Do you say that information it derives from testing hypotheses (including tests of conclusions you yourself think true) is unscientific?<br /><br /><i>"... is not like literature. It is a systematic body of knowledge.</i><br /><br />I *stated* that your "True Economics" (TE) may be "organized" (you said "systematic"). TE is "literary" in the sense that it consists of words only, not IRL observations etc. <br /><br />TE does not have "knowledge" in the sense of "information about the real world"; TE explicitly bans observation and experimentation. TE is only the use of words to draw conclusions from assumptions and having no interest (you say) in testing against IRL. This makes it a literary science, comparable to the science of smithing mithril.<br /><br /><i>"True economics does not try to borrow credit from the natural sciences"</i><br /><br />Why, then, the urge to CALL it a "science"?<br /><br />People love to attach the word "science" to their intellectual enterprises, e.g. Marxist Science, Christian Science, to comfort themselves personally and benefit their enterprise's publicity.<br />The name of a thing does not change the thing itself, so why worry?<br /> <br /><br /><i>"That is the very error made by scientism..."</i><br /><br />"Error" only in the evaluation of people who have contributed roughly zero to the sum total of human happiness. Trade every copy of every book of Karl Popper ever wrote for a single battered Chilton's shop manual, and you are richer.<br /><br /><i>"Are you completely unable to comprehend?"</i><br /><br />No. It is obvious that I comprehend very well. What so evidently distresses you is that I *disagree*.<br /><br />A bit of personal history: I, too, was a True Believer at one time, first with Christianity, then with Marxism, then I became a bit of an intellectual floozy, flirting with Libertarianism and Eastern mysticism at the same time, along with any philosophy with a ready smile and firm diction.<br /><br />I loved the sweet, sweet promises and the hot swell of ideological rigor rising to greet me. But they kept wrecking the car and leaving me to clean the toilets.<br /><br />The beautiful literary intellectual enterprises are just too similar; they start with different assumptions, but the machinery thereafter was the same. Promise everything, and give the same excuses when their predictions didn't come <i>("Marxism has never truly been tried! The Libertarian ideal has never truly been tried! Baby, give me one more chance - I promise this time we'll make it to Heaven!")</i><br /><br />I don't regret the experimentation as a necessary part of growing up; I'm just glad I didn't get any nasty diseases. Maturity has taught me to what to do with the "sciences" that were too afraid to commit to experimentation. <br /><br />They are now in the same place as other old lovers who refused to commit. I don't mind meeting them in a public park and blogging about Old Times. But I'll never let them sleep on my couch until they have the guts to get a job and risk finding out that, hey, maybe taxation isn't theft but merely the free expression of a sovereign People's right to self-organize.<br /><br />It's tough-love time, baby!<br /><br />Or, as @duncan cairncross said...<br /><br /><i>"True economics like libertarianism is a self contained truth that cannot be changed by interaction with the real world. In other words - just another cult"</i>rewinnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14008105385364113371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-6595644562891340802012-01-26T10:21:39.361-08:002012-01-26T10:21:39.361-08:00Stephan Kinsella:
"Just as the fact that a r...Stephan Kinsella:<br /><i><br />"Just as the fact that a requirement that you support and defend the society which supports and defends your rights does not mean that non-libertarians don't believe in self-ownership."<br /><br />An aggressor is committing aggression. You cannot compare just existing to this. You are trying to justify aggression by "society" against innocent indviduals. You just can't justify it. <br /></i><br /><br />And a tax cheat is committing theft of services. You can't justify it either.<br /><br />You use public services, if only police and fire protection. You may or may not make use of the public court system. You probably use public roads. By your own stated principles, you should be paying for your use of the internet. Heck, by your own stated principles, you should be paying someone royalties for using the English language. After all, YOU didn't invent it. SOMEONE did, so they should own it.<br /><br />You are perfectly willing to benefit from and be protected by society, but you are not willing to pay the associated costs. I'd say society has the same right to apply coercion that you yourself would claim if a publisher took the profits from your book without paying you.LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-81241811548019126322012-01-26T05:54:30.353-08:002012-01-26T05:54:30.353-08:00Stephan Kinsella:
An aggressor is committing aggr...Stephan Kinsella:<br /><i><br />An aggressor is committing aggression. You cannot compare just existing to this. You are trying to justify aggression by "society" against innocent indviduals. You just can't justify it. As Papinian said, it is easier to commit murder than to justify it.<br /><br />"Forfeits to whom? Who gets to "own" your body once you give up your rights?"<br /><br />The victim. <br /></i><br /><br />What if the victim is dead?<br /><br />What if there are multiple victims?LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-17778578617888172342012-01-25T21:53:01.932-08:002012-01-25T21:53:01.932-08:00"this is such an ignorant statement. True eco..."this is such an ignorant statement. True economics is not like literature. It is a systematic body of knowledge. True economics does not try to borrow credit from the natural sciences. That is the very error made by scientism that I am criticsim. Are you completely unable to comprehend?"<br /><br />True economics like libertarianism is a self contained truth that cannot be changed by interaction with the real world<br /><br />In other words - just another cultduncan cairncrossnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-74132660795487015472012-01-25T16:40:04.007-08:002012-01-25T16:40:04.007-08:00rewinn: "
2. Teleological and normative "...rewinn: "<br />2. Teleological and normative "sciences" may be a form of "science" in the sense of "organized knowledge", and if that sort of thing is what "economics" means to Mises and Company, that's well enough in a literary science; but isn't it questionable for it to borrow intellectual credit from the positive sciences whose methods it denounces? "<br /><br />this is such an ignorant statement. True economics is not like literature. It is a systematic body of knowledge. True economics does not try to borrow credit from the natural sciences. That is the very error made by scientism that I am criticsim. Are you completely unable to comprehend?Stephan Kinsellahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07986650653184633661noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-82944694114514575002012-01-25T15:01:25.088-08:002012-01-25T15:01:25.088-08:001, @Stephan Kinsella wrote:
"...unaware that...1, @Stephan Kinsella wrote:<br /><br /><i>"...unaware that this violates the is-ought Humean gap..."</i><br /><br />That is a testable proposition: whether the vast majority of scientists understand the difference between positivist and normative intellectual enterprises?<br /><br />I state confidently that, based on multiple conversations with scientists, most do, in fact, understand the difference and can describe it with great care. <br /><br />For evidence in the particular case of economics, do you remember back when anyone was paying attention to "Marxist Science", it was roundly denounced for mixing up its teleological visions with positive predictions? Several of my Econ profs or fellow students pointed out that although the former could never be falsified (... and who knows? there are probably some people somewhere proclaiming them ...), the latter had never came to pass. Eventually, most people, including virtually all scientists, came to understand the latter to have been a sufficiently grave disadvantage in a science that Marxist Science now sleeps on a cot somewhere Christian Science and Phrenology.<br /><br />2. Teleological and normative "sciences" may be a form of "science" in the sense of "organized knowledge", and if that sort of thing is what "economics" means to Mises and Company, that's well enough in a literary science; but isn't it questionable for it to borrow intellectual credit from the positive sciences whose methods it denounces? <br /><br />In addition, the argument that teleological and normative economics may be a valid intellectual enterprise is not at all probative as to the question whether positivist economics is a science.<br /><br />3. The argument that the Copyright Clause is probative as to the nature of science is just silly. Thank you.<br /><br />4. I have started to read Mises and so forth, but he and they reminds me too much of Acquinas and Augustine, and for that matter Marx, to be taken seriously. These are all brilliant men, eloquent and sophisticated, who make huge arguments from assumptions, and so patently afraid to commit themselves to changing their ideas if, put to a test, they are shown to be mistaken ... that they have nothing to teach a courageous seeker after truth. <br /><br />For example, consider the experiment with living wages mentioned above; were results of repeated experiments consistently to disagree with the predictions of the hypothesis "that a rise in minimum wage must result in a fall in living standards", perhaps a "normative scientist" may conclude not that the theory is flawed but that the experiment is flawed. However, this would not be "science" in the ordinary meaning of the word. <br /><br />5. If Libertarianism is wedded to normative and teleological "sciences" as described, I venture a prediction: in the Western World it is going to (A) go nowhere, unless it is (B) used by politicians to justify their use of power in the same way they currently use normative and teleological religions. <i>(See: Ron Paul)</i>. This sort of thing has happened in history before, and it always ends in sorrow <i>(See: Marxism)</i><br /><br />I appreciate that this is akin to telling Catholics that the Pope is not infalliable, and I apologize in advance for offending the Faithful.rewinnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14008105385364113371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-89981286229942186182012-01-25T12:40:56.884-08:002012-01-25T12:40:56.884-08:00rewinn:
"Why is it important that the system...rewinn:<br /><br />"Why is it important that the system of thought you are describing be considered "science"?<br /><br />What I get from your statements on this thread is that<br />(A) you and Mises<br />(B) reason from assumptions<br />(C) to reach conclusions<br />(D) without any testing assumptions, reasoning or conclusions against IRL<br />(E) or generating falsifiable hypotheses.<br /><br />Am I mistaken as to any of the elements above, and if so, which ones?<br /><br />There is nothing wrong with such an intellectual enterprise, but it isn't "science". "<br /><br />It is science. You modern guys are confused. in the Constitution it says we should have copyright law to promote the sciences. Why is that? b/c science is a broad term.<br /><br />I am a BSEE and MSEE. I konw my math and science. But I appreciate the difference.<br /><br />the reason it's important is that elevation of physics, chemistry etc. as science, and the confusing idea that its method is the only way of doing science, has corrupted the teleological and normative sciences like economics and misled them. and it has led to natural scientists who think they are able to pronounce on normative matters using mere data, all the while unaware that this violates the is-ought Humean gap. It leads to error and confusion. And scientism. Read your Hayek and Mises and Hoppe, and you will see the manifest problems of scientism. Try Rothbard's The Mantle of Science. Just google it. I know you can.Stephan Kinsellahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07986650653184633661noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-4620456617050788042012-01-25T12:34:08.586-08:002012-01-25T12:34:08.586-08:00@Stephan Kinsella:
Why is it important that the s...@Stephan Kinsella:<br /><br />Why is it important that the system of thought you are describing be considered "science"?<br /><br />What I get from your statements on this thread is that <br />(A) you and Mises <br />(B) reason from assumptions <br />(C) to reach conclusions <br />(D) without any testing assumptions, reasoning or conclusions against IRL<br />(E) or generating falsifiable hypotheses. <br /><br />Am I mistaken as to any of the elements above, and if so, which ones?<br /><br />There is nothing wrong with such an intellectual enterprise, but it isn't "science".rewinnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14008105385364113371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-79594623667849019792012-01-25T11:03:48.020-08:002012-01-25T11:03:48.020-08:00Stephan Kinsella:
"Once you allow that there...Stephan Kinsella:<br /><i><br />"Once you allow that there are circumstances in which an individual forfeits his rights, how does everyone else know who has done so and who has not?"<br /><br />Everyone already knows: finder's keepers; mind your own business; live and let live.<br /></i><br /><br />No, that's not the point of my question. It wasn't "Which rules determine whether someone has forfeited his rights?" It was "How does everyone else know whether or not a particular individual has broken such a rule?"<br /><br />If you come across two people having a fight, and each claims the other was the aggressor, how do you know who to believe? If you jump in to defend the supposed-victim (or hire your services out to him or whatever) and then later it turns out you were mistaken and HE was the actual aggressor, have you yourself committed an offense? What if it's a complete "He said/She said" situation, and neither claim can ever be objectively substantiated?<br /><br />If your system depends on human omniscience and infallability, then I'd consider it to have a fundamental flaw.LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-60410165825808128742012-01-25T10:02:02.771-08:002012-01-25T10:02:02.771-08:00see e.g.
http://blog.mises.org/5416/c-p-snows-the...see e.g. <br />http://blog.mises.org/5416/c-p-snows-the-two-cultures-and-misesian-dualism/<br />C.P. Snow’s “The Two Cultures” and Misesian DualismStephan Kinsellahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07986650653184633661noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-42817210575068877622012-01-25T10:01:12.958-08:002012-01-25T10:01:12.958-08:00[cont]
some knowlege is of this character. For ex...[cont]<br /><br />some knowlege is of this character. For example in econoimcs the law of supply and demand, or the idea that if you print more money then ceteris paribus prices will tend to rise, or that if you impose a minimum wage then ceteris paribus unemployment will tend to result--none of these things need be or can be tested. They don't need to be because they can be deduced as necessarily true from what it means to act, and given the explicitly introduced empirical or contingent assumptions (e.g., that here is a money society). And it is futile to test it because they cannot possibly be falsified--any more than the law of non-contradiciton could be. If you raise minimum wage and employment goes down then all we know is that ceteris was not paribus. <br /><br />some knowledge is of this type, some is empirical: in partuclar, what physical causal laws there are. But the assumption that there IS cause and effect is also not testable; instead it is an apriori assumption of doing science at all. The natural sciences thus are empirical but rest on apriori assumptions, or protophysics and logic etc. So it is frustrating when natural science types who know almost nothing about epistemology of the philosophy of science but only know how to talk about causal laws and conduct experiments make the assumption that only such type of reasoing counts as real science. This is "scientism". The view that econoics, etc., should ape the methods of the natural sciences, to be real science. That is why positivists like Milton Friedman etc. would say we hypothesize the minimum wage law and test for it. they have a mistaken view of teh foundation of economics.Stephan Kinsellahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07986650653184633661noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-15771040313852856742012-01-25T10:01:03.295-08:002012-01-25T10:01:03.295-08:00rewinn:
"1. It is a normative system, that i...rewinn:<br /><br />"1. It is a normative system, that is, its core is labeling humans actions as good or bad."<br /><br />It might be better to say it is a limited normative system--we only concern ourselves qua libertarians with the morality or permissibility of interpersonal violence. We have no position on other type of moral matters. some people say it is metanormative b/c we only have a view as to what rules should be in place as conseqeunces for certain types of actions. So that it is justified for a victim to punish his aggressor, i.e. that it is a rights violation to commit aggression--but that whether it is moral or immoral for you to commit aggression is a matter of private morals (as is the qeustion of whether it is moral or immoral of you to enforce your right to punish in some cases).<br /><br />" Thus it is to be distinguished from such things as observational science (which describe actions in realspace) or arts (which attempt to modify human feelings), or professions such as law or organized religions."<br /><br />I guess you can view it this ad hoc sort of way.<br /><br />"2. It is the codification of principles derived from a small number of axioms."<br /><br />I would not say they are axioms, but okay. It's working out the implications of certain basic normative views or assumptions--e.g. the idea that people ought to live cooperatively if possible, that prosperity is good, and so on--that, coupled with basic economic literacy (which is the chief failing of most liberals, and even conservatives), leads to libertarian political principles.<br /><br />The chief problem in the world today is economic illiteracy; it is why most people are socialist to one degree or the other (to be clear: anyone who is not a libertarian is a socialist/statist of one type or another: socialism being the name for institutionalized aggression).<br /><br />"3. It is not a political philosophy. This part surprised me, but @Stephan Kinsella explicitly denounced political action."<br /><br />You are confusing political philosophy or theory with electoral politics or strategy. THey are different. Many libertarians engage in activism or electoral politics (particularly members of the Libertairan Party); but not all of us. But libertarianism is most certainly a political philosophy: a systematic view of politics, rights, law, etc.<br /><br />"4. One axiom stated early in this thread is that "the problem of conflict ... stems from the fundamental fact of scarcity". This is IMO a very interesting axiom, since it is rooted in a testable claim about human nature."<br /><br />Actually it is not. It is an apriori assumption: it is impossible for their to not be scarcity, for without scarcity there would be no such thing as human action (see Mises' definition of this and the praxeological categories of human action: action is a choice to pursue a given end or goal, by selecting certain scarce means that are causally efficacious at achieving the end sought. THe physical sciences come into play with the practical knowledge of cause and effect to help you select the right scarce means/resources to achieve the end sought. But any attempt to deny that there are scarce means, would be an action, which by its nature has to employ scarce means and thus would be self-refuting.<br />[cont]Stephan Kinsellahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07986650653184633661noreply@blogger.com