For Mises Sake

[IcarusAngel]

Evidence that Mises has been established as a cult figure. Relevant topic on the "logic" of the Mises institute.

"If Hoppe is the leading light of Austrian economics as the Mises Institute presents him, then Austrian economics should prepare for a long dark age. At George Mason University I saw Hoppe present a lecture in which he claimed that Ludwig von Mises had set the intellectual foundation for not only economics, but for ethics, geometry, and optics, as well. This bizarre claim turned a serious scholar and profound thinker into a comical cult figure, a sort of Euro Kim Il Sung. Hoppe's scholarship is so pitiful that one of his own colleagues -- who is still involved in the Mises Institute -- once remarked to me that Hoppe's book on ethics was a truly remarkable achievement; it was the only book he had ever read in which every step of the argument was a logical fallacy."

"Hoppe's scholarship is so pitiful that one of his own colleagues -- who is still involved in the Mises Institute -- once remarked to me that Hoppe's book on ethics was a truly remarkable achievement; it was the only book he had ever read in which every step of the argument was a logical fallacy."


http://letters.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/07/06/world_opinion/permalink/541dc5dcb9584cd898fa00e2ac96e0d9.html

[Dejavu]

I don't get the point of this topic. Looks like more trolling to me. So now you want to take Hoppe's word as authority when clearly would otherwise bash Hoppe ( I would to)?

Ok YES, there are some people that have constructed a cult-of-personality around Mises. Yes, yes , yes. And some of them can be found right at the Mises Institute. But so what? If Mises worship is the basis for discrediting Mises can't the same be said about Marx ( oh, especially about Marx) if we were to use that criteria?

I mean seriously, I'm begining to think you have frustration issues. Idiot.

[IcarusAngel]

I mean seriously, I'm begining to think you have frustration issues. Idiot.

Who's has frustration issues?:


You're a vulgar dickhead.


This to me just reveals some of your angst and I think clearly shows that you goal is not increasing understanding , but to just be an angry vulgar dickhead.


Seriously, from this point forward , I'm not going to even pay attention to your drivel.


Seriously, I exhumed already enough writing on vulgar idiots like you.


^^^ Yes, I know, I've fed a troll. :(


I call you a troll...


PS: And yes, IcarusAngel is a angst-ridden teenager troll, I would not take him too seriously...


Quit putting words in my mouth, dickhead.


Your vulgarness is annoying and I suppose I deserve it to a certain degree. I used to be quite vulgar myself and only now do I see how dickish it is.

"Used to be quite vulgar"? "Angst-ridden"? "Troll"? There sure is someone who fits these definitions, and it sure isn't IA. Hint: the person has a fondness for the word "dickhead" and not staying on topic.

[Dejavu]

I am frustrated with you. That is true. You seem frustrated with anything regarding Mises. Perhaps you have built a cult-of-personality around Mises based on antipathy?

[Kassad]

Mises reminds me of a little girl with pigtails. So cute, innocent and ignorant towards the real world that you almost feel bad making them look moronic. According to the Mises and Rothbard advocates, corporations are destroying the environment because they're moderately regulated, but if we totally remove those regulations, they'll pollute less and produce higher quality products.

...Yes, seriously. That's what these fucktards believe.

Of course he's frustrated with Mises. The only higher level of ignorance can be found among Ayn Rand's literature. Mises is the cream of the bourgeois crop; supporting what would line the pockets of the wealthy at the expense of those who actually produce the wealth in the first place. Good luck finding a poor African American who is a fan of Mises. I've yet to find one and there's a good reason for that.

[Dejavu]

Mises reminds me of a little girl with pigtails. So cute, innocent and ignorant towards the real world that you almost feel bad making them look moronic. According to the Mises and Rothbard advocates, corporations are destroying the environment because they're moderately regulated, but if we totally remove those regulations, they'll pollute less and produce higher quality products. That's a poor misrepresentation of what Mises or Rothbard ever said regarding the matter. They spoke more about the true costs of pollution which cannot be known with state dictatorship over the environment. The only Misesean that has said something like you mentioned explicitly is Walter Block. And yes , he has his followers *blockheads*


Mises is the cream of the bourgeois crop; supporting what would line the pockets of the wealthy at the expense of those who actually produce the wealth in the first place. Good luck finding a poor African American who is a fan of Mises. I've yet to find one and there's a good reason for that.Clearly you haven't read much of what Mises had to say. I would wager that your sources are second or third hand and can be found on pro-socialist information outlets. Most poor African-Americans wouldn't even know who Mises was , let alone most other economists. In fact, very few poor Americans of any ethnic background would. You could say they would probably have heard of Marx , not necessarily being fans though, but that's because Marx had a great influence on social disciplines outside of economics as well.
Popularity contests don't invalidate or validate the ideas of people like Mises and Marx.

[IcarusAngel]

The reason Miseans teach these cult like settings is because Mises didn't just believe mathematics, ethics, etc. are a priori in the sense that they are derivied from reason, he believed that they are purely a priori in that they are true without any regards for the experience of the natural universe.

http://mises.org/story/2025

But we know that some proofs in math involve the conception of motion etc., and are heavily dependent on things observed in the real world.

[Dejavu]

The reason Miseans teach these cult like settings is because Mises didn't just believe mathematics, ethics, etc. are a priori in the sense that they are derivied from reason, he believed that they are purely a priori in that they are true without any regards for the experience of the natural universe.

http://mises.org/story/2025

But we know that some proofs in math involve the conception of motion etc., and are heavily dependent on things observed in the real world.

Wow, you actually provided a link but failed to cite where Mises didn't apply a priori truth by way of methods of reason. I did,however, find this in the link you provided:

Mises was not claiming that economic law is revealed to us by divine action, like the ten commandments were to Moses. Nor was he proposing that economic principles are hard-wired into our brains by evolution, nor even that we could articulate or comprehend them prior to gaining familiarity with economic behavior through participating in and observing it in our own lives.

Were you hoping nobody would access the link and take your word on it?

Seriously man , what is it with you and posting crap? I am more than happy to read a critique on Mises if it is at least plausible. I've critiqued Mises on his rule utilitarianism view of ethics for example.

I'd really like to get you off my vulgar socialist dickhead list ( Don't worry, its next to my vulgar libertarian/ancap dickhead list) but you keep on demonstrating to me over and over you really belong there.

Next time read the link you post, K? Thanks.

[IcarusAngel]

Nevertheless, Mises was justified in describing those principles as a priori, because they are logically prior to any empirical study of economic phenomena.


He is claiming economic logical principles are a priori. In essense, he is saying that they are "valid independently of observation. "

That is, there are economic laws that exist "prior to observation." It's easy to see then why Miseans take it to the next logical conclustion that Mises was determining certain logical principles that have no relation to empirical evidence - which is an outdated form of philosophy.

Even mathematical principles have some relation to the principles of the universe, and there is quite a lot of debate in mathematics as to whether it is all "a priori" or not. I believe in empiricism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mathematics#Empiricism

Or, perhaps they are logically constructed models made by the human mind. I do not believe it is prior to all observation.

[GracchusBabeuf]

I believe there is criticism (http://rightwatch.tblog.com/) of some of the far right tendencies within the Austrian school by themselves.

More by a gay libertarian (http://tomgpalmer.com/category/the-fever-swamp/).

General critique of libertarianism from a modern liberal standpoint. (http://world.std.com/~mhuben/libindex.html)

Finally, an anarchist critique of Austrianism. (http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secC1.html#secc16)

So, you are not the only one to feel pissed at the Mises Institute cultists.:D

[IcarusAngel]

Hell hath no fury like a Misean scorned. :)

They'll even appear out of nowhere and start lying to defend their leader if you so much as criticize the great Ludwig von Mises

[Dejavu]

He is claiming economic logical principles are a priori. In essense, he is saying that they are "valid independently of observation. "

That is, there are economic laws that exist "prior to observation." It's easy to see then why Miseans take it to the next logical conclustion that Mises was determining certain logical principles that have no relation to empirical evidence - which is an outdated form of philosophy.It is a form of Rationalism. Certain truths can be derived through logical reasoning. For example, if I told you squared-circles exist, you would not have to search out ever nook n' cranny in the universe to know I was wrong. Its like we can say that certain claims about god are logically incoherent without having to run the 'experiment' on god.

Mises and the Austrian tradition believes that economics, based on the fact that humans act purposefully, ought to be examined like this.



Even mathematical principles have some relation to the principles of the universe, and there is quite a lot of debate in mathematics as to whether it is all "a priori" or not. I believe in empiricism:Mises subscribed to Aristotelian logic , as he claimed. Logic is derived from consistent behavior of matter and energy. The Austrians claim that economics is derived from human beings that act purposefully in the allocation of scarce resources.

Mathematics is a non-empirical discipline ( at least this is a thought held by most experts) but it does not mean it does not accurately describe reality through abstract reasoning.

I believe in empiricism and rationalism. I think being on both extreme ends deludes you from reality. Think about how positivism worked out or Kant's critique on Pure Reason.

[Dejavu]

I believe there is criticism (http://rightwatch.tblog.com/) of some of the far right tendencies within the Austrian school by themselves.

More by a gay libertarian (http://tomgpalmer.com/category/the-fever-swamp/).

General critique of libertarianism from a modern liberal standpoint. (http://world.std.com/%7Emhuben/libindex.html)

Finally, an anarchist critique of Austrianism. (http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secC1.html#secc16)

So, you are not the only one to feel pissed at the Mises Institute cultists.:D

Wonderful. I don't think I ever claimed there were not any valid critiques of the Austrian school or method.

Even an ancap critiques the Austrian school. (http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/whyaust.htm)

[Dejavu]

Hell hath no fury like a Misean scorned. :)

They'll even appear out of nowhere and start lying to defend their leader if you so much as criticize the great Ludwig von Mises

Sorry. I'm not necessarily defending Mises. I'm pointing out the fact that you've made some silly claims. Just to list some of my own biggest critiques of Mises:

-His rule utilitarianism
-His defense of bureaucracy
-His view on General Equilibrium theory
-His claims against anarchism

[Dejavu]

Oh yeah and another critique I have of Mises is his ideas in favor of a 'Gold Commission Conversion Agency.'

But you see, these are actually valid critiques. Try coming up with one.

[IcarusAngel]

The problems inherent with Misean logic has caused even many austrians to distance themselves from the claims of Hoppe and the Austrian institute, and most people, including mathematicians, would think it's crazy.

If it isn't problamatic, other Austrians wouldn't be embarrassed by it.

Of course in math there is abstraction involved. That does not show all of it exists prior to experience. As I've said, it's more like a model. Think of a black king chess piece for a moment. It is an object. How is the black chess piece defined? It is said that the black king can at times move diagnoally one square. From that it follows that there are chess pieces that are sometimes allowed to move diagnoally by one square. And from that it follows that there are chess pieces. Of course, the chess pieces can exist independently of the game (it's possible to play without chess pieces), so the chess pieces exist independently of their physical manifestations.
So what is the black king in chess? The only way to really explain it is to point to the chess board and explain the rules of the game. What matters is not its existence but the role it plays in the game.

In math, a similiar method can be taken in regards to objects: a mathematical object is what it does.

This does not mean, though, that we can divorse math from the real world entirely to come up with "preconditions", but more that there are models. And sometimes the models can be proven wrong.

Perhaps this explains it:


How do they make such a statement? First, they see that mathematics is the science of units, and any units are acceptable. I could have said trucks instead of apples above. The validity would be the same. It is true without reference to any unit.
This sounds okay at first. The problem stems from the method of deriving the mathematical abstractions. Teach a child to do simple arithmetic, and you'll recognize that to gain the knowledge of math, one must use some units. Maybe apples. Maybe oranges. It doesn't matter which units. It does matter, though, that some unit is picked. To grasp math, one needs a foundation. Particulars from which an abstraction can be made.
Calling mathematics a priori, or knowledge independent of reality, is to undercut its base. This is the essence of the second meaning of a priori. The meaning that is actually used. An abstraction is made from particulars. Once the abstraction is made, the process from which it was derived is then ignored. The base on which it was built is denied. The abstract knowledge is then said to exist without reference to reality, since the reference is ignored.


http://importanceofphilosophy.com/Irrational_APriori.html

I don't believe mathematics is a priori in this sense and thus I have hard time with a Misean explanation of the world.

If math were a "combination" of empiricism and ratationism, then it would also debunk Misean claims.

Russell, when he tried to reduce it to logic, tried to prove it, and that is why his mathematics is useful even to this day.

In much the same way economics is a "model" that attempts to model human constructed systems of trade.

Furthermore, the claim that humans act to replace one thing with another that is "better" is also dubious.

[Bud Struggle]

Geez. Give it a break guys. :(

Argue if you want but knock off the Three Stooges antics. :)

[Dejavu]

The problems inherent with Misean logic has caused even many austrians to distance themselves from the claims of Hoppe and the Austrian institute, and most people, including mathematicians, would think it's crazy.

This is broad generalization and shows more ignorance ( or just rashness) on your part. Implicit in this claim is that A. All of Hoppe's claims are representative of Austrian economics ( there is not 'austrian institute,' only the Mises institute) and B. It can't be crazy according to the discipline of maths since Austrians never claimed that they are mathematical.

That might be applicable if , and only if , Austrians claimed to be mathematicians and were so obviously incorrect as it relates to math.


That does not show all of it exists prior to experience.

Math , since it is an abstraction, does not exist in material reality. No mathematician would make the claim. Can you show me where the number 7 exists in the world? Most mathematicians agree that mathematics is a non-empirical discipline but that's OK since math still accurately describes reality. Something like applied mathematics works with empirical study but that does not mean the discipline itself is non-abstract.

But I am not claiming to be a mathematician because I'm not. I have a layman's understanding of it and I am ready to concede that you might know more than I do about it. But that's not really what the topic is about is it? It's about Mises and the Austrian method which doesn't even claim to be mathematical. The discussions of math based theorems are certainly interesting to me but sort of irrelevant to the topic at hand. Please be an upstanding guy and stick to the crux of the topic, and try to do it without being an ignorant dickhead.

Oh and a last note about mathematics in general :


Calling mathematics a priori, or knowledge independent of reality, is to undercut its base.

I have said , over and over , mathematics is used abstractly to accurately describe reality. Furthermore , math is logical. I said logic is derived from the behavior of matter and energy in objective reality. Most math applications use a priori reasoning in the sense that if you told me 2+2=4 it is true and I don't have to find two of X and combine it with 2 of X to see , empirically , that there is a sum of 4 of X.

I am not seeing where we are deeply disagreeing about math.



If math were a "combination" of empiricism and ratationism, then it would also debunk Misean claims.

Not really, Mises doesn't claim to be a mathematician nor did he propose some mathematical theorem.



In much the same way economics is a "model" that attempts to model human constructed systems of trade.

If you believe that all economic phenomon can be explained by models. Austrians say no. Economics is the study of how humans act in the rational allocation of scarce reasources.


Furthermore, the claim that humans act to replace one thing with another that is "better" is also dubious.

Austrians never made such a claim since you can't define objectively what 'better' even means. 'Better' is meaningless without someone comparing something to something else which is a subjective matter.

Seriously man, hit the books. If you're going to make arguments against something I strongly suggest you know what you're talking about.

[Dejavu]

Geez. Give it a break guys. :(

Argue if you want but knock off the Three Stooges antics. :)

I think I'm done with that dickhead. There is no point in debating someone who does not even have a sufficient knowledge of a subject he is making arguments for or against.

[IcarusAngel]

I am not seeing where we are deeply disagreeing about math.

Here:


Math , since it is an abstraction, does not exist in material reality. No mathematician would make the claim.

Willard Van Orman Quine made the claim, as did Hilary Putman, two of the greatest thinkers and logicians of the twentieth century.


Can you show me where the number 7 exists in the world? Most mathematicians agree that mathematics is a non-empirical discipline but that's OK since math still accurately describes reality.

Are you saying numbers don't exist?

[danyboy27]

Are you saying numbers don't exist?

i am way beyoung my field of competence here but i think that what he said is that number dosnt exist, and that you can see a representation of a number but you cant see THE number itself.

[Dejavu]

Here:



Willard Van Orman Quine made the claim, as did Hilary Putman, two of the greatest thinkers and logicians of the twentieth century.

Excellent, show me a picture where a 'math' exists in material reality like a chair.




Are you saying numbers don't exist?

Precisely. Numbers are abstractions. Again, if you can point to me where the number 7 exists in the universe, perhaps show me a picture, then I'll admit I made a false claim.

[Dejavu]

i am way beyoung my field of competence here but i think that what he said is that number dosnt exist, and that you can see a representation of a number but you cant see THE number itself.

Something like that. If you showed me 7 , I would go 7 what? Lets say 7 oranges. All I am seeing in the material world are discreet oranges. I have to abstract the number 7 in my mind to aggregate them. 7 is a concept , not some object that exists.

But I thought this was basic knowledge?:closedeyes:

[IcarusAngel]

And show me where gravity exists in material reality just "like a chair." Have you ever seen an electron or a proton or have you merely seen the space in which they are supposed to exist. Physics needs electrons to say why bulbs behave the way they do, and in the same way, physicists need numbers to talk about nature the way they do.

The fact is you making claims without citing any evidence, much like self-indoctrinated was doing - and was quoting a wiki article on the "product" rule without so much as looking at the symbols and noticing it applies to differential (f') functions.

As Gowers says: "Mathematicians either find it obvious that numbers exist or do not understand what is being asked."
(Mathematics, A Very Short Introduction.)

As a layman I'll take a fields' medalist word for it. The above explanation makes sense too, and they're called "natural" numbers for a reason. They are observed in counting, and from these further abstractions are built upon. Pythagoras discovered his "incommensurables after observing that the diagnol of a hypoteneuse of a square of one unit in length was longer than one, but it was not two. These could not be expressed as an integral submultiple of the unit, and thus "irrationals" came into existence.

[IcarusAngel]

Something like that. If you showed me 7 , I would go 7 what? Lets say 7 oranges. All I am seeing in the material world are discreet oranges.

Yes and by the same argument I won't believe in gravity until you put it in a jar and paint it blue.


I have to abstract the number 7 in my mind to aggregate them. 7 is a concept , not some object that exists.

The problem with your reasoning is that you are being flippant, scatterbrained, and your reasoning is all over the place.

Try being calm, cool, and reasonable, and you might learn something in life.

[IcarusAngel]

i am way beyoung my field of competence here but i think that what he said is that number dosnt exist, and that you can see a representation of a number but you cant see THE number itself.

Read (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0192853619/ref=s9_sims_gw_s1_p14_t1?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=center-2&pf_rd_r=1EDPGTV1E79WE50T7GWF&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=470938631&pf_rd_i=507846)

The book is only like 110 pages, abstraction is covered in the first 40 pages.

[GracchusBabeuf]

This is the man the Mises Institute worships:

It cannot be denied that Fascism and similar movements aiming at the establishment of dictatorships are full of the best intentions and that their intervention has, for the moment, saved European civilization. The merit that Fascism has thereby won for itself will live on eternally in history. (http://mises.org/liberal/ch1sec10.asp)

Why any group of self-professed anarchists would defend Mises is beyond my understanding. He was a stupid two-bit hack who would have been unknown if it wasn't for his better-known comrade, Hayek, that friend of free market tyrants like, Pinochet, Reagan and Thatcher.

[Dejavu]

I can't show you gravity itself , but I can empirically test the effects of gravity. Allow me to throw you off a cliff.

Gravity itself , still is mostly theoretical. Its mathematically proven and we can measure its effects.

Ok , so show me the effects of the number 7.


socialist :

Counting is abstraction. Thought you knew that.

And I don't defend Mises the man, I am not infatuated with him or anyone else. But I will speak up when someone makes baseless claims about Mises or Marx. Get it?

[IcarusAngel]

Also:



The German people are young and vigorous, while the Western nations are old and degenerate. The Germans are diligent, virtuous, and ready to fight. The French are morally corrupt, the idol of the British is mammon and profit, the Italians are weaklings, the Rus­sians are barbarians. The Germans are the best warriors. That the French are no match for them has been proved by the battles of Rossbach, Katz­bach, Leipzig, Waterloo, St. Privat, and Sedan. The Italians always take to their heels. The military inferiority of Russia was evidenced in the Crimea and in the last war with the Turks. English land power has always been contemptible. Britain rules the waves only because the Germans, politically disunited, have in the past neg­lected the establishment of sea power. The deeds of the old Hanse clearly proved Germany's maritime genius. It is therefore obvious that the German nation is predestined for hegemony. God, fate, and history chose the Germans when they en­dowed them with their great qualities.

and:


Nazism conquered Germany because it never encountered any adequate intellectual resistance. It would have conquered the whole world if, after the fall of France, Great Britain and the United States had not begun to fight it seriously.
...
With regard to these dogmas there is no difference between present-day British liberals and the British labor party on the one hand and the Nazis on the other.


But don't you know that Mises discovered the principles of optics, geometry, logic, and ethics?

He also invented the steam engine, the automobile, and the home computer. :laugh:

Miseans are involved in a cult. Many of them probably know it is all crazy they are just too proud to admit it.

[GracchusBabeuf]

I don't defend Mises the man, I am not infatuated with him or anyone else. But I will speak up when someone makes baseless claims about Mises or Marx. Get it?Yes. But aren't many of the market anarchists based out of the Mises Institute?

[synthesis]

It seems to me that if "the number 7" actually existed apart from its subjective properties, it would be at the very least theoretically possible to negate its existence. We know gravity exists in part because we know that if we eliminated every source of gravity then it would no longer exist. Abstractions exist only in our brain cells; the only way to negate "the number 7" would be to eliminate every being (including yourself) which is capable of processing it as an abstraction.

[Dejavu]

It cannot be denied that Fascism and similar movements aiming at the establishment of dictatorships are full of the best intentions and that their intervention has, for the moment, saved European civilization. The merit that Fascism has thereby won for itself will live on eternally in history. (http://www.anonym.to/?http://mises.org/liberal/ch1sec10.asp)

There may be people at the Mises Institute that uphold such ridiculous views. Guess what, I am not a member of the MI nor do I agree with such a stupid view. So quit trying to straw man me or put me in a category with some nutters.

The above statement has nothing to do with Austrian theory of economics and it does not invalidate any of the arguments put forward. At best , it shows there are some vulgar dickheads that happen to agree with Austrian economics. Please don't tell me Marxism is somehow 'pure' of its own dickheads.

This is akin to me extrapolating some of the horrible things done by Stalin's regime 'in the name of communism' and claiming that all communists are , somehow , ideologically tied to Stalin. Such a claim would be ignorant , vulgar , and all around dickish. Think of 'Freeman' and how angry you guys got at him for mischaracterizing your positions due to 'association.'

socialist , you're making a place for yourself on my vulgar socialist dickhead list along with IA. Then indeed, you guys wouldhave much in common with the ancaps and libertarians I have placed on my vulgar libertarian/ancap dickhead list.

[Dejavu]

Yes. But aren't many of the market anarchists based out of the Mises Institute?

There are some , yes. But certainly not 'most' or all. Hardly the case. The Mises Institute is a myriad of minarchist christian-fascist libertarians, objectivists, paleo or arch conservatives, vulgar ancaps , and yes you do find a non-vulgar pro-market anarchist every now and then but usually we leave if we are posting on their forums because of their vitriol against anything Left.

I don't actually like the Mises Institute because of these dickheads. However, that's not an argument against all aspects of Austrian theory. If you want to debate how messed up some prominant people at the Mises Institute are or on their forums, then I'm likely to agree with you. But debating Austrian theory and about the people at the MI are two different things.

[GracchusBabeuf]

socialist , you're making a place for yourself on my vulgar socialist dickhead list along with IA.I understand that you are not defending Mises's words, but my question was about the market anarchist movement, not you as an individual. So, take it easy and get me and everyone off that list. Why do you make such lists, BTW? If you don't agree with others, just say so.

[IcarusAngel]

The quote about fascism is from Ludwig von Mises himself, not some "vulgar dickhead" at the Mises institute.

And this guy says that I need to read Ludwig von Mises.:laugh: Mark as troll.

And I have read human action. It's portrayal of socialism is highly inaccurate.

[IcarusAngel]

It seems to me that if "the number 7" actually existed apart from its subjective properties, it would be at the very least theoretically possible to negate its existence. We know gravity exists in part because we know that if we eliminated every source of gravity then it would no longer exist. Abstractions exist only in our brain cells; the only way to negate "the number 7" would be to eliminate every being (including yourself) which is capable of processing it as an abstraction.

And if aliens observed the universe they could only come to the same conclusion that there are 7 apples, or 7 "kinds" of things. Cosmic evolution could be said to have to have designed math, or perhaps evolution of man led us to the conclusions we have about it.

Even if math is "all in the mind," that is much different than saying it all reduces to A = A, or that is prior to all existence.

[Dejavu]

I understand that you are not defending Mises's words, but my question was about the market anarchist movement, not you as an individual. So, take it easy and get me and everyone off that list. Why do you make such lists, BTW? If you don't agree with others, just say so.

There are no unified market anarchists. There are 'market anarchists' like me that lean to the Left and can be described as a mutualist of sorts and there are vulgar ancaps which I find very little in common with.

The 'list' is not actually a list but used abstractly to make a point.

I am more than happy to disagree with others but there is a difference with disagreeing with reasonable people like Demogorgon , RGacky, GDPD , etc and disagreeing with dickheads like IA. I would not insult Gacky , GDPD , or Demo buy putting them in the same catagory as IA who doesn't use actual arguments but just straw men.



The quote about fascism is from Ludwig von Mises himself, not some "vulgar dickhead" at the Mises institute.

Mises' stupid comments can be called dickish and vulgar , absolutely.
But not all of his contributions were f-ed up like his minor exerpts about praising fascism over state-socialism.

But again , that has nothing to with Austrian economics itself. Even really dickish people can make a good argument, but you don't usually do that.


And this guy says that I need to read Ludwig von Mises.:laugh: Mark as troll.

If you're going to make arguments against his economics then you should have at least some solid grounding in knowledge about it. The same can be said of someone making arguments against Marx's economic theory.



And I have read human action. It's portrayal of socialism is highly inaccurate.

Now I think you're a liar and a vulgar dickhead. If this has any credibility, please show me where you disagree in HA. References please.

[IcarusAngel]

I'm under no obligation to prove anything to you, especially from the guy who makes bullshit claims like "all mathematicians agree" + "some bullshit statement Ludwig von Mises" taught, without citing source. I've already provided my sources for everything I have said. It's not so much me talking, as the logicians I have studied, who are REAL logicians, and not pseudo-logicians like von Mises.

Second, in the book Mises claims that socialist economic calculation is fatally flawed because it leads to a dictator making all of the decisions collectively. Even a two year old could figure out that socialism is not supposed to work like this, and dictators decisions haven't generally been worse economically then the failed "market economics" Mises support.

Mises claims are of course false logicially, but they are false empirically as well, and that's why he rejected empiricism, as it contradicts him.

[Dejavu]

Guess what? You don't deserve my attention anymore. Have a nice day.

[Dejavu]

Btw , happy birthday , socialist.

[IcarusAngel]

Yes, you've said you "aren't going to reply" numerous times now, and yet you continue to make BS statements, including "no mathematician would agree that numbers exist" - even after I provided them.

The writing is in Human Action, where he notes that socialism cannot exist without a market, and always act as a collectivist unit, and is thus a dictatorship. Hayek taught the same thing, and it is jibberish, and contrary to economic theory.

[GracchusBabeuf]

Btw , happy birthday , socialist.Why, thank you.:D

[IcarusAngel]

Perhaps you would enjoy a Mises coffee mug for your birthday:

http://www.mises.org/store/Assets/ProductImages/M162.jpg

or a poster for an easy payment of $10:

http://www.mises.org/store/Assets/ProductImages/M110.jpg

Mises prevails.

[Kassad]

That's a poor misrepresentation of what Mises or Rothbard ever said regarding the matter. They spoke more about the true costs of pollution which cannot be known with state dictatorship over the environment. The only Misesean that has said something like you mentioned explicitly is Walter Block. And yes , he has his followers *blockheads*

You're so right! So we should just let them pollute and see what happens! I'm sure there's no negative repercussions of those kinds of things. Thanks, I've read my fair share of Mises and the horse shit he considers economics. What we see in this 'state dictatorship' that you describe is half-regulation; a corporatocracy that rules over the highest tiers of the Western world. Under these regulatory schemes that are more porous than a fucking sponge, corporations and executives dodge taxes and exploit workers in the undeveloped world for profit. Imagine if we removed what little regulations there are on the private sector! No trade barriers or protections to keep corporate entities from using more sweatshop labor! It's Mises approved!


Clearly you haven't read much of what Mises had to say. I would wager that your sources are second or third hand and can be found on pro-socialist information outlets. Most poor African-Americans wouldn't even know who Mises was , let alone most other economists. In fact, very few poor Americans of any ethnic background would. You could say they would probably have heard of Marx , not necessarily being fans though, but that's because Marx had a great influence on social disciplines outside of economics as well.
Popularity contests don't invalidate or validate the ideas of people like Mises and Marx.

Feel free to shuffle away with your tail between your legs. I attend meetings of my local Constitution and Libertarian Party branches, which include the consistent praise of Ron Paul, Murray Rothbard and Ludwig Von Mises. I've read all the pieces of shit they've recommended to me, including the third grade logic found in Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt. The reason the most exploited don't hear about Mises is because no one in their social status is talking about him, because if they did, they'd likely get their asses kicked. I'm sure exploited and manipulated workers like John Q. American who just lost their health insurance and their job because their employer decided to cut corners would love to hear more about how we should let employers pay their employees whatever the fuck they feel like and how the government shouldn't be "tyrannical" and force them to give things like health insurance and proper wages. Oh, the fucking anguish.

Once more before the finale, you're talking out your ass. I do volunteer work at a hospital and occasionally at a soup kitchen. People there are so open to Marx and Lenin that it honestly baffled me. When I talk to patients who can't pay their bills, it's heartbreaking. I talked to a man once who was pretending to feel better so he could be discharged and stop running up a bill that would burden his family until they went to their graves. This man was not preaching private healthcare that had put the nails in his coffin. Instead, when I asked him, he was incredibly infatuated with the idea of socialized healthcare. When I mentioned Marx, he was very open-minded. The problem with Mises is that his only crowd is the crowd of the privileged. While Marx and Lenin preach the liberation of the working class, Mises supports the bourgeois elite that exploits the laboring workers of the world. Mises is worshipped by white and privileged groups and rarely nothing more. I don't see anyone black at the Constitution Party meetings, nor did I see any during Ron Paul's run for president.

Anyway, your ignorance aside, I think you're very wrong. Popularity in different social groups says a lot. It's apparent that the idea of "anarchy" appeals to a lot of youth who want to rebel. It appears that Marx is admired by the downtrodden and those who seek liberation; an assortment of social groups and peoples. Mises, instead, is only supported and praised by an elitist group. That tells you a lot about their ideology. Those who support Ludwig Von Mises would be pleased as long as they had a fancy fucking toaster oven, a gun and enough money to pay for whatever they desired. And that's Mises' ideal society; a community where the elite rule and the downtrodden suffer, but that's their fault. Must've not been working hard enough, right?

[GracchusBabeuf]

Perhaps you would enjoy a Mises coffee mug for your birthdayWho wouldn't? I'd also like the Pinochet coffee jug and Thatcher tea set, please. A Hitler wine glass would also be splendid.:D Thank you!

[IcarusAngel]

Most of the theories of the Mises institute are in support of deregulation - the same type of deregulation supported by the likes of Mussolini, Hitler, Reagan, Pinochet, etc.

Somebody from this forum (perhaps Socialist?) posted an article about six months back about the experiment in Latin America with free-market economics. The free-marketeers knew that they would have to rely on opressive authoritarian regimes to set up a laboratory for their free-market theories, and that they would have to work with dictators such as Pinochet. But what happened to Chile? (http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-chichile.htm) Unemployed skyrocketted; wealth was transferred into the hands of the elite; Pinochet established himself as one of the worst human rights abusers on the planet; etc.

This also led to the establishment of "Operation Condor" which was a collusion of dictators that implemented oppressive policies in Latin America to stifle dissent against the neo-liberal policies. It was a complete failure as well that led to the establishment of other dictators such as Branco, Videla, Papa Doc and Baby Doc, and so on. And yet, who to this day continues to advocate "neo-liberalism"? The Ludwig von Mises Institute, who are constantly promoting "free-trade."

For effects of "neo-liberalism" see this book:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c5/Profit_Over_People.jpg


(Or also get "What Uncle Same Reall Wants," which goes into detail into how the US installed brutal, corporate friendly dictatorships all across Latin America, which is so horrifying it's hard to even read about, let alone write about.)

Basically, advocating the type of free-market fundamentalism necessarily leads one into supporting authoritarianism in order to implement these policies.

And what about health care? According to the Institute of Medicine, 22,000 Americans die every year from the lack of health insurance. Millions of people are uninsured, and yet nearly ever other industrialized country has had health care for decades.

And yet, who opposes efforts to get the US health care? The Mises institute, as they claim government-sponsored health care is a "bureaucracy":


http://img145.imageshack.us/img145/6663/healthcarelx4.png



They claim this even though it has been proven the corporate model ends up costing society MORE in total expenditures. Do Miseans care? Nope. They just want to make it worse.

In fact, ever since the industrial revolution millions of people in industrialized countries have died from lack of basic health care, access to medicine, etc., according to the Black Book of Capitalism. According to Amartya Sen, India went deep into poverty after they implemented their first free-market reforms and millions of people died - more in total every 8 years than the number who perished in the Great Chinese Famine. According to UNSCOM, after the collapse of the USSR there were approximately 100,000 children and infants dying every year from starvation, disease, etc. And what about the Miseans who oppose foreign aid to countries to fight diseases that can be cured for a couple of cents on the dollar. This is all the kind of stuff that they right, and it is sickening.

And what about the coming eco-catastrophe? As Kassad points out, these problems are compounded by free-market neo-liberalism, esp. in China and in India. These and other countries are places where growth is being fueled by multinational investors for whom the environment is an "externality." Even product safety isn't a concern which is why you see so many tainted goods from there, and the people themselves are kept in poverty and industrial-age style working conditions, instead of building up a budding middle class through the use of pro-worker government programs. The government is merely used to keep profits in tact and workers oppressed.

Corporate capitalism and privatization schemes have nearly wrecked the environment and have destroyed the lives of millions. Businesses and corporations are as close to strict totalitarian structures as you're ever going to find. And it hasn't worked out too well for people in the past, and it doesn't seem to be working now.

So, who are the "good Miseans" that point out the tyranny of this free-enterprise system? I'm still waiting to see them, but they are nowhere to be found - infact, they want to encourage this market tyranny, not decrease it.

[synthesis]

And if aliens observed the universe they could only come to the same conclusion that there are 7 apples, or 7 "kinds" of things. Cosmic evolution could be said to have to have designed math, or perhaps evolution of man led us to the conclusions we have about it.

Even if math is "all in the mind," that is much different than saying it all reduces to A = A, or that is prior to all existence.

What are you really saying here? I thought my argument contradicted yours, but it looks like you agree with my conclusions. I am saying that mathematics do not exist except as a subjective interpretation of reality; by "subjective" of course, I mean that they are a function of the evolved human ability to consider abstractions, and therefore they can only be said to exist within whatever part of the brain it is that handles abstractions.

If aliens evolved the capacity to consider abstractions, the abstractions would still only exist within whatever part of their body that happened to process them. Their ability to think in terms of abstractions would obviously and inevitably have direct effects on their objective conditions, but the abstractions would still only exist subjectively, again, meaning that they only exist as a function of neurological processes and not as some metaphysical presupposition.

[synthesis]

So, who are the "good Miseans" that point out the tyranny of this free-enterprise system? I'm still waiting to see them, but they are nowhere to be found - infact, they want to encourage this market tyranny, not decrease it.

I suppose that "good Miseans" would try to dig up some evidence that Pinochet actually acted against the free market by stifling local enterprise in favor of multinational corporations, thereby relegating him to their alleged class of "corporatists" and consequentially not "one of them."

However, and this hardly even needs to be said, "good Miseans" are awfully hard to find.

[Dejavu]

The Chicago School influenced Pinochet.

[Kassad]

The Chicago School influenced Pinochet.

The differences between the Austrian and Chicago schools are minute. Austrians idolize Milton Friedman, and frankly, the differences between the two are so hard to see that you honestly have to listen to Rothbard lectures at the same time as Friedman ones to catch them. Laissez-faire capitalism influenced Pinochet and that's all that needs said.

[GracchusBabeuf]

personally I prefer a liberal dictator to democratic government lacking liberalism.Hayek in an interview to (pro-Pinochet Chilean) newspaper El Mercurio, 1981. He had his meeting of the Mont Pelerin society in Pinochet's Chile even as Pinochet was gleefully implementing Friedman's economic shock therapy.

[Wanted Man]

Somebody from this forum (perhaps Socialist?) posted an article about six months back about the experiment in Latin America with free-market economics. The free-marketeers knew that they would have to rely on opressive authoritarian regimes to set up a laboratory for their free-market theories, and that they would have to work with dictators such as Pinochet. But what happened to Chile? (http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-chichile.htm) Unemployed skyrocketted; wealth was transferred into the hands of the elite; Pinochet established himself as one of the worst human rights abusers on the planet; etc.

This also led to the establishment of "Operation Condor" which was a collusion of dictators that implemented oppressive policies in Latin America to stifle dissent against the neo-liberal policies. It was a complete failure as well that led to the establishment of other dictators such as Branco, Videla, Papa Doc and Baby Doc, and so on. And yet, who to this day continues to advocate "neo-liberalism"? The Ludwig von Mises Institute, who are constantly promoting "free-trade."
Sounds consistent:

"In a covenant concluded among proprietor and community tenants for the purpose of protecting their private property, no such thing as a right to free (unlimited) speech exists, not even to unlimited speech on one's own tenant-property. One may say innumerable things and promote almost any idea under the sun, but naturally no one is permitted to advocate ideas contrary to the very purpose of the covenant of preserving private property, such as democracy and communism. There can be no tolerance towards democrats and communists in a libertarian social order. They will have to be physically separated and expelled from society. Likewise in a covenant founded for the purpose of protecting family and kin, there can be no tolerance toward those habitually promoting lifestyles incompatible with this goal. They -- the advocates of alternative, non-family and kin-centred lifestyles such as, for instance, individual hedonism, parasitism, nature-environment worship, homosexuality, or communism -- will have to be physically removed from society, too, if one is to maintain a libertarian order." (Hoppe)

[Green Dragon]

Hayek in an interview to (pro-Pinochet Chilean) newspaper El Mercurio, 1981. He had his meeting of the Mont Pelerin society in Pinochet's Chile even as Pinochet was gleefully implementing Friedman's economic shock therapy.


Hayek's comment was based in the classical definition of liberalism- the greatest freedom and liberty possible for people. He is one who believed the objective should be freedom, and believed that democracy was not always the best guarantor of liberty.

[GracchusBabeuf]

Just proves that liberalism taken to its logical conclusion leads to imperialism, slavery and dictatorship.

[trivas7]

Just proves that liberalism taken to its logical conclusion leads to imperialism, slavery and dictatorship.
Wow. You're saying that the classical definition of liberalism ends up as imperialism, slavery and dictatorship? But that's exactly the charge conservatives make of the communist project... :unsure:

[GracchusBabeuf]

Wow. You're saying that the classical definition of liberalism ends up as imperialism, slavery and dictatorship? But that's exactly the charge conservatives make of the communist project... :unsure:Ultra-Liberalism, as followed by the likes of Mises, Rand etc, tends to lead to a cult of the individual where individuals are atomized and disconnected to each other. Thats what we are seeing in today's liberal societies, where individuals are becoming more and more physically isolated from each other.

This phenomenon, of course, does not happen on its own. Such a phenomenon is indeed very useful for the ruling classes who gladly encourage the disassociation of today's society in order to consolidate their own power.

The ruling classes would not have the subject population form associations and mingle among each other, helping each other out. That would be disastrous for the liberal project.

Thats the reason ultra-liberals are so distrustful of democracy and the so-called "mob rule", which is nothing but the peaceful association of people leading eventually to democratic rule.

[GracchusBabeuf]

To add to the above, the stark ignorance of most Americans and others in liberal democracies about even a few of their government's mega misdeeds abroad and at home is another example of how a society of isolated individuals helps in consolidating the tyranny of its rulers. Just read any of Chomsky's books to get a taste of the nefarious deeds of the western governments. Ask any "Joe the plumber" about this, he wouldn't know Nicaragua from Guatemala.

[GracchusBabeuf]

About numbers and where they come from, Engels deals with this in Anti-Duhring (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1877/anti-duhring/ch01.htm),

That pure mathematics has a validity which is independent of the particular experience of each individual is, for that matter, correct, and this is true of all established facts in every science, and indeed of all facts whatsoever. The magnetic poles, the fact that water is composed of hydrogen and oxygen, the fact that Hegel is dead and Herr Dühring alive, hold good independently of my own experience or that of any other individual, and even independently of Herr Dühring's experience, when he begins to sleep the sleep of the just. But it is not at all true that in pure mathematics the mind deals only with its own creations and imaginations. The concepts of number and figure have not been derived from any source other than the world of reality. The ten fingers on which men learnt to count, that is, to perform the first arithmetical operation, are anything but a free creation of the mind. Counting requires not only objects that can be counted, but also the ability to exclude all properties of the objects considered except their number — and this ability is the product of a long historical development based on experience. Like the idea of number, so the idea of figure is borrowed exclusively from the external world, and does not arise in the mind out of pure thought. There must have been things which had shape and whose shapes were compared before anyone could arrive at the idea of figure. Pure mathematics deals with the space forms and quantity relations of the real world — that is, with material which is very real indeed. The fact that this material appears in an extremely abstract form can only superficially conceal its origin from the external world. But in order to make it possible to investigate these forms and relations in their pure state, it is necessary to separate them entirely from their content, to put the content aside as irrelevant; thus we get points without dimensions, lines without breadth and thickness, a and b and x and y, constants and variables; and only at the very end do we reach the free creations and imaginations of the mind itself, that is to say, imaginary magnitudes. Even the apparent derivation of mathematical magnitudes from each other does not prove their a priori origin, but only their rational connection. Before one came upon the idea of deducing the form of a cylinder from the rotation of a rectangle about one of its sides, a number of real rectangles and cylinders, however imperfect in form, must have been examined. Like all other sciences, mathematics arose out of the needs of men: from the measurement of land and the content of vessels, from the computation of time and from mechanics. But, as in every department of thought, at a certain stage of development the laws, which were abstracted from the real world, become divorced from the real world, and are set up against it as something independent, as-laws coming from outside, to which the world has to conform. That is how things happened in society and in the state, and in this way, and not otherwise, pure mathematics was subsequently applied to the world, although it is borrowed from this same world and represents only one part of its forms of interconnection — and it is only just because of this that it can be applied at all.

[Dejavu]

Ultra-Liberalism, as followed by the likes of Mises, Rand etc, tends to lead to a cult of the individual where individuals are atomized and disconnected to each other. Thats what we are seeing in today's liberal societies, where individuals are becoming more and more physically isolated from each other.

Nice setting up of a straw man. You're presenting a false dichotomy by suggesting any political theory that acknowledges the primacy of the individual is necessarily anti-community. The one that comes closest to your caricature is Rand but even she was not atomistic. Today's liberal societies are not part of the classical liberal tradition.

That's like me saying : 'Well, communism leads to ultimate tyranny by brutally collectivizing individuals, we see that in recent communist countries, etc...'

Of course, anyone with a fair understanding of communism would object and claim its a false definition of communism.


This phenomenon, of course, does not happen on its own. Such a phenomenon is indeed very useful for the ruling classes who gladly encourage the disassociation of today's society in order to consolidate their own power.

It is certainly true that ruling classes like to separate people by hording them to a particular ideological camp, but it does not follow that this can be blamed on individualism. Especially if these individualistic members of society gladly collectivize under a different political tent such as Democrats , Republicans , conservatives , etc.


The ruling classes would not have the subject population form associations and mingle among each other, helping each other out. That would be disastrous for the liberal project.

So the current state of affairs in the world are the result of some 'liberal project' to 'promote individualism' to you?


Thats the reason ultra-liberals are so distrustful of democracy and the so-called "mob rule", which is nothing but the peaceful association of people leading eventually to democratic rule.

Most anarchists (regardless on where you fall on the anarchist spectrum) are weary of 'mob-rule.' Collectivized direct democracy without sufficient individualism is just another way of of stating 'might makes right.'
If a pro-Nazi society was 'ruled by the masses' in a direct democracy paradigm and disdained the individual then the life of the Jew would be subject to the opinion of the crowd and his fate would be legitimate so long as the vast majority of society voted a certain way.

[Dejavu]

Allow me to quote Ericco Maletesta from the Anarchist FAQ :

"Much has been said about the respective roles of individual initiative and social action in the life and progress of human societies . . . [E]verything is maintained and kept going in the human world thanks to individual initiative . . . The real being is man, the individual. Society or the collectivity - and the State or government which claims to represent it - if it is not a hollow abstraction, must be made up of individuals. And it is in the organism of every individual that all thoughts and human actions inevitably have their origin, and from being individual they become collective thoughts and acts when they are or become accepted by many individuals. Social action, therefore, is neither the negation nor the complement of individual initiatives, but is the resultant of initiatives, thoughts and actions of all individuals who make up society . . . [T]he question is not really changing the relationship between society and the individual . . . t is a question of preventing some individuals from oppressing others; of giving all individuals the same rights and the same means of action; and of replacing the initiative to the few [which Malatesta defines as a key aspect of government/hierarchy], which inevitably results in the oppression of everyone else .

[trivas7]

Allow me to quote Ericco Maletesta from the Anarchist FAQ :
Social action, therefore, is neither the negation nor the complement of individual initiatives, but is the resultant of initiatives, thoughts and actions of all individuals who make up society . . .
From a Marxist POV this is not the case. Social action is the result of the interaction of material productive forces and social classes related to those forces, not the sum of thoughts and acts of all individuals who make up society. Social forces compel all individuals, not the other way around.

[Dejavu]

From a Marxist POV this is not the case. Social action is the result of the interaction of material productive forces and social classes related to those forces, not the sum of thoughts and acts of all individuals who make up society. Social forces compel all individuals, not the other way around.

Right , this analysis is the product of dialectical historical materialism. Its really a question of whether individuals precede the collective or the other way around. I happen to side with Maletesta's view regarding this.

[GracchusBabeuf]

Nice setting up of a straw man. You're presenting a false dichotomy by suggesting any political theory that acknowledges the primacy of the individual is necessarily anti-community. No. What I said was that Mises and Rand were individualists and I have read enough of Mises' and Rand's works to know that for a fact.

Today's liberal societies are not part of the classical liberal tradition. No idea what "classical liberal tradition" means. I don't care if today's society is part of any "tradition". We need to look at society itself and the material factors that exist in society. Let us stick to facts.


It is certainly true that ruling classes like to separate people by hording them to a particular ideological camp,Thats clearly not what I said. The ruling classes don't actually physically isolate individuals, but they love whats happening now.


So the current state of affairs in the world are the result of some 'liberal project' to 'promote individualism' to you? Again, I never said the liberals or the ruling classes cause this to happen, though they may encourage such a thing. Its the capitalist system that does this.


Most anarchists (regardless on where you fall on the anarchist spectrum) are weary of 'mob-rule.' Collectivized direct democracy without sufficient individualism is just another way of of stating 'might makes right.' I have no idea what collectivized direct democracy means. But, I think what you are trying to say is that democracy cannot be used to make some individuals lose their freedom. Yes. Thats true. I accept that. One's freedom ends at one's nose. Noone should have the right to take away the freedom of others. However, a non-democratic power structure is not the way to ensure this. To say, "Oh, democracy is mob-rule, the rule of elites is much better" is like fucking to keep your virginity. Unfortunately, all the ultra-liberal elites say exactly that: freedom cannot be entrusted to so-called "mob-rule". "Let us have a bunch of super-intelligent elites rule over the everyone." Basically if we logically extend liberalism, we cannot find any democracy at all. This is because, as you must know from your Austrian school pundits, most of the classical liberals were extremely distrustful of democracy and of the "masses" in general. It is exactly such an elitist attitude that becomes clear when Mises and Hayek say things like I quoted above.


If a pro-Nazi society was 'ruled by the masses' in a direct democracy paradigm and disdained the individual then the life of the Jew would be subject to the opinion of the crowd and his fate would be legitimate so long as the vast majority of society voted a certain way.See my above reply.


and of replacing the initiative to the few, which inevitably results in the oppression of everyone else Thats right. Thats the reason Malatesta opposed wage labor along with the statist apparatus.

[Dejavu]

No. What I said was that Mises and Rand were individualists and I have read enough of Mises' and Rand's works to know that for a fact.

How does it follow that they were anti-community or anti-social?


No idea what "classical liberal tradition" means. I don't care if today's society is part of any "tradition". We need to look at society itself and the material factors that exist in society. Let us stick to facts.

Well that's interesting. Don't you think you ought to be familiar with some of the ideas put out by the classical liberal tradition before citing it as a cause for the current state of affairs? As far as I know, in terms of managing society , classical liberalism is all but dead.


Again, I never said the liberals or the ruling classes cause this to happen, though they may encourage such a thing. Its the capitalist system that does this.

Its authoritarian systems that does this. Capitalism is one version of it.


One's freedom ends at one's nose. Noone should have the right to take away the freedom of others. However, a non-democratic power structure is not the way to ensure this.

When you emphasize any power structure ( democratic or not) it necessarily creates an inequality of authority and thus freedom is imbalanced. You have the ruled and the rulers.


Unfortunately, all the ultra-liberal elites say exactly that: freedom cannot be entrusted to so-called "mob-rule". "Let us have a bunch of super-intelligent elites rule over the everyone."

If by ultra-liberal you mean the current ruling classes then I would have to agree. The 'freedom' you speak of has to be better defined. Are we suggesting that people should have freedom to stuff, therefore implying a positive obligation upon others to provide it or are we talking about freedom from stuff mandating no action , therefore , making a logical case for universality for everyone?


This is because, as you must know from your Austrian school pundits, most of the classical liberals were extremely distrustful of democracy and of the "masses" in general. It is exactly such an elitist attitude that becomes clear when Mises and Hayek say things like I quoted above.

Oh, the snarkiness! 'My Austrian school pundits?' :laugh: Sorry, I am a free thinker and do not attach myself to set of ideological grouping be it libertarian , communist , capitalist , etc. If you read Hayek in particular , you will see he was in favor of democracy so long as provisions that safeguarded minorities ( the largest minority being the individual in any society) were in place. In pure democracy, the freedom of the individual is the extent to which others decide for him and guys like Mises and Hayek didn't like that too much. I don't see how this makes them elitists in this context.


Thats right. Thats the reason Malatesta opposed wage labor along with the statist apparatus.

He opposed wage slavery on this premise. I agree with him. :thumbup1:

[GracchusBabeuf]

How does it follow that they were anti-community or anti-social? where did I say that?


When you emphasize any power structure ( democratic or not) it necessarily creates an inequality of authority and thus freedom is imbalanced. You have the ruled and the rulers. Democracy is still a power structure. Its self-rule. That's what makes it different from the elitist power structures we have seen in human history. The only alternative to democracy is minority-rule. You seem to ignore this fact and instead you propose an idealist system where "there are no rulers and ruled". This itself assumes things about human nature which are profoundly ahistorical. Good luck with creating such a system.


If by ultra-liberal you mean the current ruling classes then I would have to agree.Yes. The current ruling classes as well as the ultra-liberal theorists like Mises and other of his ilk who support the ruling classes.


The 'freedom' you speak of has to be better defined.This question sidetracks my point of classical liberals being against democracy and for elite rule and I don't see the point.


Sorry, I am a free thinker Good for you, but beware that noone exists in a vacuum. ;) We're all naturally influenced by our surroundings, our society and its values.


I don't see how this makes them elitists in this context. The so-called democracy liberals talk about is bourgeois democracy, which undermines the whole concept of democracy.

[Dejavu]

where did I say that?

Ultra-Liberalism, as followed by the likes of Mises, Rand etc, tends to lead to a cult of the individual where individuals are atomized and disconnected to each other.

Perhaps I misunderstood your meaning?


Democracy is still a power structure. Its self-rule.That is an incorrect definition of democracy. Demos implies more than one person therefore not pertaining specifically to the 'self' but more to 'people' (more than one). Kratia ( demos-kratia or demokratia) means government. Thus, it implies 'people government' and not self-rule or 'self-government.' Again, if the issue was 'self-rule' then democracy would be pointless since it the 'self' is descriptive of a discreet person and all people.

But yes it is a power structure and power structures necessarily create a class of ruled and class of rulers.


The only alternative to democracy is minority-rule. How does this follow? Minority rule might be the opposite of democracy but this is not the only alternative system of rule. I'm having a hard time seeing why this is not a false dichotomy. Given our clarification of what democracy actually means, why can't self-rule and voluntary communitarian standards ( incidently validated by the recognition of self-rule) be an alternative?


You seem to ignore this fact and instead you propose an idealist system where "there are no rulers and ruled". This itself assumes things about human nature which are profoundly ahistorical. Good luck with creating such a system.Then you can't be an anarchist since an (no or without) arch (ruler) means, you guessed it, 'no rulers.' I am not saying there cannot be justified authority or leadership but that's profoundly different than rulership which is non-voluntary and coercive.

If human nature is to prefer coercive rule, then its pointless to advocate liberty or anarchism. I don't believe this to be the case, however.


Yes. The current ruling classes as well as the ultra-liberal theorists like Mises and other of his ilk who support the ruling classes.Citation?


This question sidetracks my point of classical liberals being against democracy and for elite rule and I don't see the point.Again, they supported democracy so long as said democracy did not unjustly abridge the rights of individuals.


Good for you, but beware that noone exists in a vacuum. ;) We're all naturally influenced by our surroundings, our society and its values.I'm perfectly aware of that which is why I acknowledge many points of view and do not wed myself to a single conclusion.


The so-called democracy liberals talk about is bourgeois democracy, which undermines the whole concept of democracy.True.

[IcarusAngel]

About numbers and where they come from, Engels deals with this in Anti-Duhring (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1877/anti-duhring/ch01.htm),

That pure mathematics has a validity which is independent of the particular experience of each individual is, for that matter, correct, and this is true of all established facts in every science, and indeed of all facts whatsoever. The magnetic poles, the fact that water is composed of hydrogen and oxygen, the fact that Hegel is dead and Herr Dühring alive, hold good independently of my own experience or that of any other individual, and even independently of Herr Dühring's experience, when he begins to sleep the sleep of the just. But it is not at all true that in pure mathematics the mind deals only with its own creations and imaginations. The concepts of number and figure have not been derived from any source other than the world of reality. The ten fingers on which men learnt to count, that is, to perform the first arithmetical operation, are anything but a free creation of the mind. Counting requires not only objects that can be counted, but also the ability to exclude all properties of the objects considered except their number — and this ability is the product of a long historical development based on experience. Like the idea of number, so the idea of figure is borrowed exclusively from the external world, and does not arise in the mind out of pure thought. There must have been things which had shape and whose shapes were compared before anyone could arrive at the idea of figure. Pure mathematics deals with the space forms and quantity relations of the real world — that is, with material which is very real indeed. The fact that this material appears in an extremely abstract form can only superficially conceal its origin from the external world. But in order to make it possible to investigate these forms and relations in their pure state, it is necessary to separate them entirely from their content, to put the content aside as irrelevant; thus we get points without dimensions, lines without breadth and thickness, a and b and x and y, constants and variables; and only at the very end do we reach the free creations and imaginations of the mind itself, that is to say, imaginary magnitudes. Even the apparent derivation of mathematical magnitudes from each other does not prove their a priori origin, but only their rational connection. Before one came upon the idea of deducing the form of a cylinder from the rotation of a rectangle about one of its sides, a number of real rectangles and cylinders, however imperfect in form, must have been examined. Like all other sciences, mathematics arose out of the needs of men: from the measurement of land and the content of vessels, from the computation of time and from mechanics. But, as in every department of thought, at a certain stage of development the laws, which were abstracted from the real world, become divorced from the real world, and are set up against it as something independent, as-laws coming from outside, to which the world has to conform. That is how things happened in society and in the state, and in this way, and not otherwise, pure mathematics was subsequently applied to the world, although it is borrowed from this same world and represents only one part of its forms of interconnection — and it is only just because of this that it can be applied at all.


Yes. A lot of the time my own political and world interpretations match up to what has been taught in Marxist teaching. This is similiar to my own description of mathematics, such as why the natural numbers exist, although my view became a bit muddled when I started talking about abstraction. But notice also that his interpretation is also similiar to the quotes and musings from the mathematicians and logicians I posted who are writing now in twenty-first century.

It is true that the numbers exist in the certain world and our mathematical models and methods have some relation to the real world. Every great advance in mathematics has arisen out of the needs shown in natural science or out of the need felt to connect together analogous mathematical processes used to describe different natural phenomena. Even the Egyptians, who were very particular about the orientation of their temples, understood this. They had to obtain a north and south line, and also an east west line to begin their temples. To get the east and west line, which had to be drawn at right angles to the north west line, they used a rope ABCD, divided by knots at B and C, so that lengths AB, BC, CD were in the proportion 3 : 4 : 5. BC was placed along the north and south line, pegs P and Q inserted at the knots B and C. BA was rotated around peg P, and CD was rotated round the peg Q, until the ends A and D coincided; the point marked by a peg R. Thus the result was a triangle PQR, with the angle P being a right angle and the line PR was the east west line. They had no theorem for it but the theorem is demonstrated in "Euclid's elements."

As for base 10 it didn't come as easily about as that we have 10 fingers so we should use base 10. The babylonians for example I believe used base 16. Our system where an integral number is denoted by a series of digits, each representing the product of that digit and a power of 10, with the number being equal to the sum of the of these products, was introduced into Europe by the arabs who obtained it from the Hindus. This was actually the result of the strenuous work of the most gifted mathematicians of the time. But no matter which system you use, each number is still an "object" so to speak and so Engles is essentially correct.

I think it's funny that self-owner claimed he was going to "prove" Mises was correct and that he was a mathematician yet, as usual, he left the forum without having proving anything, certainly not this self-ownership concept.

I also found out that Rothbardians, Miseans, etc. give degress to each other. Maybe this is where Self-Owner got his degree. This is a common tactic for any cult: in scientology for example you work your way up in the Ecclesiastial hieararchy, and those on the higher levels have more power. Creationists use their own schools, have their own educational system here in the US, who are non-accredited.

Miseans and Rothbardians do the same thing and you can receive a "Rothbardian degree" etc. This does not reflect your true knowledge of the world, but only your commitment to the ideology of Miseanism. At the Mises institute, for example, many of the people there do not have any degrees at all like at a normal think tank, but only receive support so long as they continue the ideology. A great deal of them are nothing more than "bloggers."

It is nothing more than a cult, and their version of "logic" is something that exists only in their heads.

[GracchusBabeuf]

But yes it is a power structure and power structures necessarily create a class of ruled and class of rulers. Its the other way round actually. Classes create power structures. There can be no power structures in a classless society. Any form of "governance" will be done only by productive members of society. there would be no need for bureaucrats in such a system.


Then you can't be an anarchist since an (no or without) arch (ruler) means, you guessed it, 'no rulers.' Anarchism cannot be defined from the dictionary. Anarchism describes a method/way to achieving a classless society, just like Marxism does.

[trivas7]

I
Anarchism cannot be defined from the dictionary. Anarchism describes a method/way to achieving a classless society, just like Marxism does.
If anarchism can't be defined it has no meaning. IMO anarchism is more a wish than a methodology: no political program, a group of mutually exclusive social theories and a utopian fantasy.

[Dejavu]

IMO anarchism is more a wish than a methodology: no political program, a group of mutually exclusive social theories and a utopian fantasy.

That's true if you're one of those anarchists that proposes an unsound theory of anarchism.

[GracchusBabeuf]

IMO anarchism is more a wish than a methodology: no political program, a group of mutually exclusive social theories So, you wouldn't accept any "political program" that doesn't involve bureaucrats and/or parliamentary programs? Whats the bit about "mutually exclusive social theories"?

[trivas7]

So, you wouldn't accept any "political program" that doesn't involve bureaucrats and/or parliamentary programs? Whats the bit about "mutually exclusive social theories"?
What IYO is a political program? And if you think that the views of Bakunin and Prodhoun are compatible, think again.

[GracchusBabeuf]

What IYO is a political program? What do you think it is?

And if you think that the views of Bakunin and Prodhoun are compatible, think again.Not that I care two hoots about either of them, what do you think are the so-called incompatibilities?

[Dejavu]

What do you think it is?
Not that I care two hoots about either of them, what do you think are the so-called incompatibilities?

Nice job in not answering his questions.

[GracchusBabeuf]

Nice job in not answering his questions.They're his claims, not mine.

[Self-Owner]

I think it's funny that self-owner claimed he was going to "prove" Mises was correct and that he was a mathematician yet, as usual, he left the forum without having proving anything, certainly not this self-ownership concept.

I also found out that Rothbardians, Miseans, etc. give degress to each other. Maybe this is where Self-Owner got his degree. This is a common tactic for any cult: in scientology for example you work your way up in the Ecclesiastial hieararchy, and those on the higher levels have more power. Creationists use their own schools, have their own educational system here in the US, who are non-accredited.

Uh, where exactly did I say that I could prove it? I'd like to see a quote, partly because I remember saying precisely the opposite. I stopped discussing maths with you because it was becoming patently clear that you don't know what you're talking about, and because I have better things to do (like revise for my exams so I actually can become a mathematician.) Thanks for the interest in my personal life, but I can assure you my degree is from somewhere that will stand me in good stead. :)

[Havet]

(...)To say, "Oh, democracy is mob-rule, the rule of elites is much better" is like fucking to keep your virginity. Unfortunately, all the ultra-liberal elites say exactly that: freedom cannot be entrusted to so-called "mob-rule". "Let us have a bunch of super-intelligent elites rule over the everyone." Basically if we logically extend liberalism, we cannot find any democracy at all. This is because, as you must know from your Austrian school pundits, most of the classical liberals were extremely distrustful of democracy and of the "masses" in general. It is exactly such an elitist attitude that becomes clear when Mises and Hayek say things like I quoted above.

Why even have someone rule over anyone? If you logically extend liberalism, you reach anarchism, which is of course not compatible with democracy in the sense that a majority of a population would not force the rest for whatever the politicians had managed to convince them.

[GracchusBabeuf]

anarchism, which is of course not compatible with democracy in the sense that a majority of a population would not force the rest for whatever the politicians had managed to convince them.Anarchism is not the same as anarchy. (http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secA1.html)

[trivas7]

If you logically extend liberalism, you reach anarchism, which is of course not compatible with democracy in the sense that a majority of a population would not force the rest for whatever the politicians had managed to convince them.

Others on this thread argue just the opposite:

Just proves that liberalism taken to its logical conclusion leads to imperialism, slavery and dictatorship.

[Dejavu]

^lol

[IcarusAngel]

Despite what Misean fascists claim, much of the modern theories of democracy came out of the French Enlightenment and from the French classical liberals. John Locke, Thomas Paine, and numerous others also held that the earth is held in common by everybody, thus to use it individually is a restriction against everybody else. And then there were people like Rousseau who opposed property ownership altogether, believing instead that we should work as communities. Libertarians, being dogmatic little fascists, try and discredit Rousseau by linking him to certain totalitarian regimes, but in political science even his detractors have said this argument has been "completely discredted" - Rousseau wouldn't have favored any kind of the capitalism and corporatism that were the backbone of the fascist states, for example, and the anti-democratic nature of Stalin. He also opposed imperialism.

Much of the ideas of workers' rights are based in classical liberalism, in addition to their basis in socialist and anarchist arguments.

Liberalism can indeed mean different things to different people. As even many anarchists (the left variety) claim to have been influenced by Liberal writing, I tend to favor liberal philosophy over conservative philosophy - such as Burke and others, who were inherently statists.

The modern "right" including the right anarchists actually have a lot more in common with the conservative thinkers and philosophers, as the backbone of much liberal philosophy was preventing concentrated resources (opposition to mercantilism, unrestricted property, worker-manager relationship), etc., whereas philosophers such as Hobbes and other inherent statist provided the backbone for the type of arguments used by our right anarchist friends.

However, if you use "Liberal" to mean "neo-liberal," then I am indeed opposed to it, as much as I am opposed to conservatism, as it's ridiculous to talk about "free trade" in a world of oppressive corporations.

As usual, the Libertarian trolls here overlook basic common sense in making their comments, and can't seem to understand how two people would have two different uses of the word.

[IcarusAngel]

This is Mises University:
http://mises.org/images3/mu.gif

Just look at these happy campers (which one is self-owner?):
http://mises.org/images/mu2007.jpg


Mises University is open to full-time students, faculty, and current Members of the Mises Institute (Click HERE (https://www.mises.org/donate.aspx) to join). Interested full-time students can apply now (https://www.mises.org/form.aspx?Id=3) to receive a scholarship covering full tuition, housing, and meals (catered and served at the Mises Institute). A limited number of Member Observer and Faculty slots are available. Member Observers and Faculty may Register Online Here (https://www.mises.org/form.aspx?Id=24).

AUSTRIAN ECONOMICS

Rooted in the tradition of Carl Menger and Ludwig von Mises, as well as Murray Rothbard and F.A. Hayek, the Austrian School offers a rigorous and logical approach to economics that gives free markets their due and takes full account of the reality of human choice.


Classes are interspersed with reading groups, discussion seminars, faculty panels, and plenary lectures. There are special sessions on economic history, economics and ethics, and political philosophy. Nightly social hours allow time to meet and discuss it all with faculty and other students. There's even a primer on surviving graduate school.


http://mises.org/events/110

How is this different from Scientology again?

Somebody ought to sign up for a couple of classes and rebel in class. Or maybe do some undercover reporting on this stuff.

I'm do it but, I'm way too scared.