Human Action [Archive]

Jack

18th June 2009, 03:36

I know how you're scared you're being flooded with Miseans but I have three questions which have been bugging me.

How do socialists in all forms reconcile themselves with the Action Axiom and the conclusions logically deduced from this axiom by Ludwig von Mises?

Also, without private property, how does the communist state undertake economic calculation? Anarcho-Capitalists undertake economic calculation by the prices created through private ownership of property.

Also, how do communists justify aggression against other people? Anarcho-Capitalists stress the principle of NO (NO NO NO) aggression against other people.

I'll answer 2 and 3, because I find economics to be quite a bore past the basics.

"Communist State" is an oxymoron, Communism is stateless and classless, next question.

Depends, what did they do to deserve it? Thuggish attacks for no reason or for some punkass kids to giggle about, will be met with punishment, as will home robbery and all sorts of unnessacary crime. Crimes are either because of an economic situation, or a crime of passion. Once communism is established, there is no reason for crime beyond passion (which is a tiny minority).

gobblegobble

18th June 2009, 03:40

ok jack, how do people living in a communist COMMUNITY (no matter the size) undertake economic calculation?

laminustacitus

18th June 2009, 03:42

I'll answer 2 and 3, because I find economics to be quite a bore past the basics.
Well done, not answering his question, and displaying the fact you do not know a thing about economics, which unmasks your blood-thirsty regime for the emperor without clothing it truly is. I doubt you could even tell me what the calculation debate was unless you quickly wiki it.

Depends, what did they do to deserve it? Thuggish attacks for no reason or for some punkass kids to giggle about, will be met with punishment, as will home robbery and all sorts of unnessacary crime. Crimes are either because of an economic situation, or a crime of passion. Once communism is established, there is no reason for crime beyond passion (which is a tiny minority).
You truly obviously know no economics. There will be no mythic communism where the problems of scarcity, and human nature will be cured; its a fantasy.

Jack

18th June 2009, 03:46

Well done, not answering his question, and displaying the fact you do not know a thing about economics, which unmasks your blood-thirsty regime for the emperor without clothing it truly is. I doubt you could even tell me what the calculation debate was unless you quickly wiki it.

You truly obviously know no economics. There will be no mythic communism where the problems of scarcity, and human nature will be cured; its a fantasy.

This is why I almost didn't mention why I didn't answer the first one. The standard response with you whiney ****s is: U DUNT NO NUTHIN ABOOT ECONOMICKS!!!11!1!

Well, you don't know anything about work. I know that whatever economic system your proposing, no matter how much bullshit you cover it up in, means that I get less pay, more hours, and have to bust my ass for someone else even harder just to fucking feed myself. Ever hear of poverty champ? No, you've never been there and never will be because mommy and daddy got a nice education and you have your nice little petite-bourgoeios lifestyle going on.

Anyways, you idiots irritate me, so get the fuck off RevLeft.

IcarusAngel

18th June 2009, 03:47

Humans act is pretty meaningless. Many things "act" when given a stimulus. Machines act, or compute, for example. Other species "act" as well.

It's like A = A, except even less real. I prefer "humans think." Humans emerged out of one of only a few groups that were capable of establishing a type of civilization for themselves. Their thinking became more and more rational, I suppose, in order to survive the conditions they faced and so on. This is the business of anthropology and archeology, not dumb ass economists.

Mises was not a logician or a mathematician or anything of the sort. He wasn't neither a psychologist nor a scientist. He was a complete idiot whose ideas are forgotten except by a few Libertarians.

Jack

18th June 2009, 03:51

GracchusBabeuf

18th June 2009, 04:02

laminustacitus

18th June 2009, 04:02

Oh, and you can go off back to Mises and say how we're "emotional" and "irrational" and "don't understand economics". But the simple fact is that the vast majority of us have been affected negatively by capitalism, something you wouldn't understand.
And I once got burned by fire, nevertheless I have not decided that I must banish fire from all of society.

You were hurt by capitalism, so what, get over it.

laminustacitus

18th June 2009, 04:06

"Nothing in these abstract economic models actually works in the real world. It doesn't matter how many footnotes they put in, or how many ways they tinker around the edges. The whole enterprise is totally rotten at the core: it has no relation to reality." [Noam Chomsky, Understanding Power, pp. 254-5]
Ah yes, a classic argumentum ad verecundiam without any substantial evidence to back it up. Neverthelss, some academics go into a fit when economics prove their pet theories as fantasies.

The social function of economic science consists precisely in developing sound economic theories and in exploding the fallacies of vicious reasoning. In the pursuit of this task the economist incurs the deadly enmity of all mountebanks and charlatans whose shortcuts to an earthly paradise he debunks. Ludwig von Mises, Economic Freedom, and Interventionism, pp.51-52

IcarusAngel

18th June 2009, 04:07

laminustacitus

18th June 2009, 04:12

Humans act is pretty meaningless. Many things "act" when given a stimulus. Machines act, or compute, for example. Other species "act" as well.
You do not comprehend what "Action" is. "Action" is purposefully applying means in order to attain desired ends, only man can do that, neither machine, nor animal can.

It's like A = A, except even less real.
And yet you are acting in order to disprove the Action Axiom! It is a tautologically true statement, and merely trying to disprove it results in its validation. It is truly a synthetic a priori judgement.

I prefer "humans think." Humans emerged out of one of only a few groups that were capable of establishing a type of civilization for themselves. Their thinking became more and more rational, I suppose, in order to survive the conditions they faced and so on. This is the business of anthropology and archeology, not dumb ass economists.
I know, the conclusions of economics of those "dumb ass economists" can be so hard to accept. Nevertheless, this comment has nothing to do with the Action Axiom.

Mises was not a logician or a mathematician or anything of the sort. He wasn't neither a psychologist nor a scientist. He was a complete idiot whose ideas are forgotten except by a few Libertarians.
I can't believe that you cannot do any better than insulting someone.

gobblegobble

18th June 2009, 04:19

IcarusAngel

18th June 2009, 04:25

You do not comprehend what "Action" is. "Action" is purposefully applying means in order to attain desired ends, only man can do that, neither machine, nor animal can.

This is not proven true by experiments. Monekys observed by Kohler were able to obtain food placed for them by means of stacking boxes, for example.

That's 'purposefully applying means in order to attain desired ends.' Of course animals act.

And yet you are acting in order to disprove the Action Axiom! It is a tautologically true statement, and merely trying to disprove it results in its validation. It is truly a synthetic a priori judgement.

My "action" comes from my thinking and brain waves, this is the source of my acting. If they didn't exist I wouldn't be acting.

The "acting axiom" doesn't prove or show anything - I can't prove that it isn't someone else ultimately driving my thoughts, or that I'm really in a dream, etc.

I can only take reality at face value and try and understand why I act, which, again, takes me back to studying the mind.

I know, the conclusions of economics of those "dumb ass economists" can be so hard to accept. Nevertheless, this comment has nothing to do with the Action Axiom.

The "action axiom" doesn't exist. Real axioms lead to the establishment of fundamental truths.

I can't believe that you cannot do any better than insulting someone.

That Mises has no credibility and is a cult figure should be taken into consideration when dealing with this mythical nonsense.

IcarusAngel

18th June 2009, 04:27

Ok, so far i've had two responses by two idiots who immediately created and attacked their own strawmen.

I hope there is someone with even a modicum of intelligence have a go at answering the three questions. Isn't there supposed to be a resident scholar here, rose lichtenstein or something?

Lol. The burden of proof is on YOU to show that the axiom exists and leads to real truths of the world.

No one can debunk something that doesn't even really exist.

laminustacitus

18th June 2009, 04:34

Lol. The burden of proof is on YOU to show that the axiom exists and leads to real truths of the world.

No one can debunk something that doesn't even really exist.
He came onto your forum desiring your opinions about a matter, and you truly cannot give him some respect, and a solid answer? Whine all you want about the burden of proof being on him, he is asking you for your opinions onto why it is not true, and so far you have not given him anything.

gobblegobble

18th June 2009, 04:38

This is not proven true by experiments. Monekys observed by Kohler were able to obtain food placed for them by means of stacking boxes, for example.

That's 'purposefully applying means in order to attain desired ends.' Of course animals act.

My "action" comes from my thinking and brain waves, this is the source of my acting. If they didn't exist I wouldn't be acting.

The "acting axiom" doesn't prove or show anything - I can't prove that it isn't someone else ultimately driving my thoughts, or that I'm really in a dream, etc.

I can only take reality at face value and try and understand why I act, which, again, takes me back to studying the mind.

The "action axiom" doesn't exist. Real axioms lead to the establishment of fundamental truths.

That Mises has no credibility and is a cult figure should be taken into consideration when dealing with this mythical nonsense.
All you have established so far is that you do not understand the Action Axiom. I have not come on here to enlighten buffoons such as yourself on the intricacies of economics, but am merely seeking an intelligent person on these boards to attempt to answer the questions. I note you have not attempted to answer the other questions.

In future do not respond to a question if you cannot comprehend the subject matter.

IcarusAngel

18th June 2009, 04:42

You don't come to a forum and ask people's opinion on something that only exists in your head. That's like a scientist making up a theory and giving zero evidence to support it. That's not how it works.

An axiom has a valid use, like the axioms in geometry. These lead to further constructions and proofs, like the proofs of the pythagorean theorem, that are based on such axioms. These are shown step by step in a very logical matter.

Don't make topics if you don't understand the nature of debate and proofs in the first place - it isn't worth anyone's time to even address something that you can't even give any evidence for.

You guys clearly have little education, probably nothing behond Mises University?

laminustacitus

18th June 2009, 04:45

IcarusAngel

18th June 2009, 04:47

He came onto your forum desiring your opinions about a matter, and you truly cannot give him some respect, and a solid answer? Whine all you want about the burden of proof being on him, he is asking you for your opinions onto why it is not true, and so far you have not given him anything.

If the axiom was valid, you wouldn't be making false statements like that animals cannot make decisions when they obviously can.

IcarusAngel

18th June 2009, 04:48

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

I think that answers my question. Get a real degree, and then maybe you can cite some REAL texts that demonstrate this "axiom" in serious detail. Then come back.

Skooma Addict

18th June 2009, 04:50

So does anyone want to explain how a socialist society can undertake rational economic calculation? I don't see how it could in the absence of the markets price system.

laminustacitus

18th June 2009, 04:52

If the axiom was valid, you wouldn't be making false statements like that animals cannot make decisions when they obviously can.
There is no way to prove that animals make decisions, it is outside of our realm of knowledge since we cannot differentiate between a decisions, and a reaction to stimuli. In addition, the Action Axiom does not say that animals cannot make decisions, it just elucidates, and elevates man as the homo agens.

IcarusAngel

18th June 2009, 04:57

It has been shown by scientists that animals not only make decisions in how to obtain food but also make decisions on how to choose mates etc:

"
Washington, June 9 (ANI): Purdue University researchers have shown that animals make more complex decisions about choosing mates than earlier thought.
"
http://in.news.yahoo.com/139/20090609/981/tsc-animals-make-more-complex-decisions.html

Again, pseduo-science and ridiculous semantic arguments are only a place for mises forums and Mises University.

laminustacitus

18th June 2009, 05:03

It has been shown by scientists that animals not only make decisions in how to obtain food but also make decisions on how to choose mates etc...
How am I supposed to know whether there is a decision, or merely a reaction to stimuli when an animal does something. In the end, I can only infer that animals make decisions, but it is not a truly scientific deduction since I cannot get into the minds of those animals.

gobblegobble

18th June 2009, 05:07

It has been shown by scientists that animals not only make decisions in how to obtain food but also make decisions on how to choose mates etc:

"
Washington, June 9 (ANI): Purdue University researchers have shown that animals make more complex decisions about choosing mates than earlier thought.
"
in.news.yahoo.com/139/20090609/981/tsc-animals-make-more-complex-decisions.html

Again, pseduo-science and ridiculous semantic arguments are only a place for mises forums and Mises University.
Um, guy, you're attacking another strawman.

RHIZOMES

18th June 2009, 06:12

I must agree with the Miseans to a point, the arguments so far have been sort of shit. But I'm not going to correct this. Arguing with right-wing nerds on the internet is a waste of time. Socialist revolution isn't going to happen because we managed to convince elitist bourgeois economists (In their little academic bubble detached from the rest of the world) and middle class kids who found the "libertarianism" article on Wikipedia of the need for working class emancipation. Socialist revolution is going to happen through working class organization and agitation.

trivas7

18th June 2009, 14:53

How do socialists in all forms reconcile themselves with the Action Axiom and the conclusions logically deduced from this axiom by Ludwig von Mises?

You need to explain this in more detail.

I must agree with the Miseans to a point, the arguments so far have been sort of shit. But I'm not going to correct this. Arguing with right-wing nerds on the internet is a waste of time. Socialist revolution isn't going to happen because we managed to convince elitist bourgeois economists (In their little academic bubble detached from the rest of the world) and middle class kids who found the "libertarianism" article on Wikipedia of the need for working class emancipation. Socialist revolution is going to happen through working class organization and agitation.
What a stinking dodge. How do you expect the working class to rally to your cause if you can't intelligently argue w/ those you disagree w/? Why have the OI forum?

IMO much of the disagreement stems from Mises's rejection of philosophical materialism as foundational to the social sciences.

SocialismOrBarbarism

18th June 2009, 15:29

I don't see how it could in the absence of the markets price system.

So you don't think measuring the amount of labor used to produce something is a viable way of representing opportunity cost?

Kwisatz Haderach

18th June 2009, 15:37

I know how you're scared you're being flooded with Miseans but I have three questions which have been bugging me.
We're not "scared of being flooded with Miseans" so much as we're irritated at you starting all these threads and expecting us to have the time to carefully respond to all of them. The more threads you start, the less likely it will be that the new threads will get you anything other than insults.

What's the rush? We have all the time in the world. Be patient and you'll get your answers eventually.

How do socialists in all forms reconcile themselves with the Action Axiom and the conclusions logically deduced from this axiom by Ludwig von Mises?
What are the conclusions? I am familiar with the economic calculation argument, the subjective theory of value, and the libertarian ethics embraced by most Austrians - but not with your anti-scientific a priori mental masturbation in the realm of epistemology.

If you want answers to your arguments, take the time to actually say what those arguments are. Don't just give me their names. Unless you want me to say stuff like "Historical materialism refutes you!"

Also, without private property, how does the communist community (society?) undertake economic calculation? economic calculation in an anarcho-capitalistic society is made possible by the prices created through private ownership of property.
First, be careful with your use of terms like "communism." Marxists use "communism" to mean the kind of post-scarcity society that we envision in the distant future. You should have asked how the socialist community undertakes economic calculation, since we use the term "socialism" for the kind of scarcity-based economy that is our immediate short term goal.

Second, the economic calculation argument is enormously long. You've got Mises, Hayek, Robbins and Lavoie, we've got Taylor, Dickinson, Lange, possibly Barone depending on how you interpret him, and of course Cottrell and Cockshott. Where do you want to start? The original Mises argument from Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth? Or what?

If you want a short answer, I can give you one, but it will be as cryptic to those unfamiliar with the calculation debate as was your question.

My answer comes in three parts:

1. Thanks to advances in computer technology, the mathematical solution, first formulated by Enrico Barone before the Mises challenge and casually brushed aside by Hayek in 1935, is now entirely feasible. As long as we have the necessary information about capital goods. And we will, because:

2. Thanks to the internet, mobile phone networks, and other modern forms of instantaneous communication, dispersed information can be centralized in real time.

3. As for "tacit information" - the one that supposedly cannot be centralized because it cannot be articulated - you have no empirical evidence that it even exists.

If you wish to argue with me on this topic, be my guest, but please make your premises, arguments and conclusions clear so that we don't, you know, talk past each other, as Lavoie would say.

Also, how do communists justify aggression against other people (ie stealing their property) to undertake the transformation into a communist society?
Different communists would answer that in several different ways, actually. The most prominent arguments are:

1. Private property is illegitimate. There is no right to own private property. The owners of private property are the ones using aggression to keep everyone else from having access to their property. We aim only to put an end to their aggression.

2. All notions of "natural rights" are illegitimate. Good and evil are properly defined in consequentialist terms. Does an action have good consequences? Then it is good. We believe the communist transformation of society will have extremely good consequences. Therefore it will be good. Whether or not we use aggression to achieve it is irrelevant.

3. Why not? What's wrong with aggression, anyway? Whatever any ethical system may dictate, in practice, people do not act in any consistent ethical way. They tend to act to further their own interests. So, we will implement communism because it will further our interests - the interests of the working class. End of story.

The first argument is deontological, the second is consequentialist, and the third rejects formal ethics altogether.

Kwisatz Haderach

18th June 2009, 16:20

How am I supposed to know whether there is a decision, or merely a reaction to stimuli when an animal does something. In the end, I can only infer that animals make decisions, but it is not a truly scientific deduction since I cannot get into the minds of those animals.
How am I supposed to know whether there is a decision, or merely a reaction to stimuli when another human does something? In the end, I can only infer that humans make decisions, but it is not a truly scientific deduction since I cannot get into the minds of those humans.

Thus, I'm afraid the Action Axiom will have to be reduced from "People act" to "I act."

trivas7

18th June 2009, 16:47

How am I supposed to know whether there is a decision, or merely a reaction to stimuli when another human does something? In the end, I can only infer that humans make decisions, but it is not a truly scientific deduction since I cannot get into the minds of those humans.

Thus, I'm afraid the Action Axiom will have to be reduced from "People act" to "I act."
Are you denying that people act to ends? That's all this axiom means AFAIK. Or do you reject out of hand a priori synthetic propositions?

Honggweilo

18th June 2009, 16:54

LERN2DASKAPITAL now fek off troll

laminustacitus

18th June 2009, 17:00

How am I supposed to know whether there is a decision, or merely a reaction to stimuli when another human does something? In the end, I can only infer that humans make decisions, but it is not a truly scientific deduction since I cannot get into the minds of those humans.

Thus, I'm afraid the Action Axiom will have to be reduced from "People act" to "I act."
Because we are both members of the same species, and we all share the same quality of consciousness since we are in the same species.

IcarusAngel

18th June 2009, 17:06

What humans perceive in themselves is simply not part of science. This is indeed a very valid criticism of the Miseans.

Even psychologists recognize this distinction. For example, speaking of physics and perception, if we were to try and discover what state of body someone is in when they have a toothache, we cannot do it based on what they tell us alone; it cannot be based on description alone. People with cavities may say they have a toothache, but they may not actually have it. Saying you have a toothache and actually have it are two different things; if they weren't, then you could cure a toothache merely by saying you didn't have one. I'm sure a denist would agree with me this is impossible. It's all logic.

We also can't trust what we supposedly perceive. We can be mistaken. We can see things that aren't really there and we can confuse one thing with another. This is why scientists stress that experiments must be REPRODUCIBLE. Anybody with a third grade education knows this. This is also why scientists take notes and write down what they've discovered almost immediately, as their memory can't be trusted either. That is why such a value is placed on scientific consensus and experimentation.

What we perceive is more related to psychology and even here, if you've studied, they make a distinction between what is perceived within yourself from what you can observe in other humans. There was a behaviorist school of thought that taught that even humans learned nothing other than what was imprinted on them and thus behaved (even in regards to language) in a more mechanical matter. And John Locke, a supposed Libertarian, also taught the tabula rasa, which is similar to behaviorism. In this sense humans are much more like our (misconceptions) of how animals behave.

Anyway, what kind of "axioms" leads to false conclusions and false beliefs, like the Misean has just stated? He states things that are false because his axiom is invalid. Axioms are accepted based upon the fact that they lead to established truths.

So, noting the anti-science of the 'axiom' is very important. Even a Misean on that website in their troll thread says that "self-ownership" and "action axiom" are not very good arguments (apparently he hasn't been indoctricated yet).

He asked for a text demonstrating their "truth," and got a link to another page on the server. There's a reason they can't show a valid text to prove their claims.

And most of the "miseans" do not have college degrees - of any kind. Many writers on that site merely have training from "Mises University" and you can see it when they write an article.

laminustacitus

18th June 2009, 17:21

If you want answers to your arguments, take the time to actually say what those arguments are. Don't just give me their names. Unless you want me to say stuff like "Historical materialism refutes you!"
Unless of course the OP just wants to check to see if you have any rational reason for your political ideology, and if you are not familiar with what he asked about, then you simply do not

First, be careful with your use of terms like "communism." Marxists use "communism" to mean the kind of post-scarcity society that we envision in the distant future.
Sorry, this is reality, not Star Trek. Scarcity is here to stay for there will always be a limited amount of natural resources, yet an unlimited demand for them.

You should have asked how the socialist community undertakes economic calculation, since we use the term "socialism" for the kind of scarcity-based economy that is our immediate short term goal.
Socialism can't calculate, that is the pithy version of the calculation argument so whatever "calculation" you are referring to is a delusion.

1. Thanks to advances in computer technology, the mathematical solution, first formulated by Enrico Barone before the Mises challenge and casually brushed aside by Hayek in 1935, is now entirely feasible. As long as we have the necessary information about capital goods. And we will, because:
Computer technology is only as good as the information that you put into the computer, which is where Hayek's thesis about the use of knowledge in society kills it.

2. Thanks to the internet, mobile phone networks, and other modern forms of instantaneous communication, dispersed information can be centralized in real time.
But, you cannot centralize individual valuations.

3. As for "tacit information" - the one that supposedly cannot be centralized because it cannot be articulated - you have no empirical evidence that it even exists.
Tacit information is nothing but the knowledge learned by doing the job that cannot be learned otherwise. For instance, riding a bicycle is something that can only be learned by doing it, it is a primitive example of tacit knowledge. To quote a student of Hayek, David Gordon, Hayek gave this as his own example:

He said that a few years before, he had resumed skiing after a long absence from the slopes. While he was skiing downwards at a fast pace, he suddenly saw a body lying directly in front of him. Without thinking about it, he immediately swerved aside.

Tacit knowledge, sine dubio.

1. Private property is illegitimate. There is no right to own private property. The owners of private property are the ones using aggression to keep everyone else from having access to their property. We aim only to put an end to their aggression.
Economics is wertfrei, it should not contain ethical arguments. The calculation problem's consequences exist no matter what our ethical views are.

2. All notions of "natural rights" are illegitimate. Good and evil are properly defined in consequentialist terms. Does an action have good consequences? Then it is good. We believe the communist transformation of society will have extremely good consequences. Therefore it will be good. Whether or not we use aggression to achieve it is irrelevant.
Again, not an argument against the calculation argument, just a ethical proposition.

3. Why not? What's wrong with aggression, anyway? Whatever any ethical system may dictate, in practice, people do not act in any consistent ethical way. They tend to act to further their own interests. So, we will implement communism because it will further our interests - the interests of the working class. End of story.
Like all of the above, this does not pertain to the economic calculation debate. Plus who are you to say that your views represent that of every single workingman, are they not capable of their own views?

The first argument is deontological, the second is consequentialist, and the third rejects formal ethics altogether.
And all of them have absolutely no weight whatsoever against the problem of economic calculation, they are all ethical propositions, and economic laws don't care about what ethics an economy professes.

IcarusAngel

18th June 2009, 17:29

If you keep replying to the Miseans - you're just going to get the same Misean arguments ad-nauseum with a mix of pseudo-science here and there.

And socialists can't calculate? Socialists have had some of the best mathematicians and logicians in the twentieth century!

Of course, socialism can calculate. Humans have always calculated on what to do with resources. This is nonsense of the highest order.

laminustacitus

18th June 2009, 17:34

What humans perceive in themselves is simply not part of science. This is indeed a very valid criticism of the Miseans.
What we perceive in ourselves are synthetic a priori truths.

We also can't trust what we supposedly perceive. We can be mistaken. We can see things that aren't really there and we can confuse one thing with another.
What you refer to is our sensibilities, not perception per se. Nevertheless, there are synthetic a priori judgements that are necessary for experience to exist in the first place.

This is why scientists stress that experiments must be REPRODUCIBLE. Anybody with a third grade education knows this. This is also why scientists take notes and write down what they've discovered almost immediately, as their memory can't be trusted either. That is why such a value is placed on scientific consensus and experimentation.
The social sciences, and physical sciences are two different animals, do not confuse the methods of one for the methods for the other.

What we perceive is more related to psychology and even here, if you've studied, they make a distinction between what is perceived within yourself from what you can observe in other humans. There was a behaviorist school of thought that taught that even humans learned nothing other than what was imprinted on them and thus behaved (even in regards to language) in a more mechanical matter.
Cute, but it does not matter. There are still synthetic a priori truths.

Anyway, what kind of "axioms" leads to false conclusions and false beliefs, like the Misean has just stated? He states things that are false because his axiom is invalid. Axioms are accepted based upon the fact that they lead to established truths.
Axioms must be true before they can lead to truths. Nevertheless, the Action Axiom is irrefutable.

So, noting the anti-science of the 'axiom' is very important. Even a Misean on that website in their troll thread says that "self-ownership" and "action axiom" are not very good arguments (apparently he hasn't been indoctricated yet).
"Self-ownership" is not an axiom of economics. If you think that the Action Axiom is false, then refute it - wait, to refute it you would be applying a means in order to attain an ends, hence validating the axiom.

And most of the "miseans" do not have college degrees - of any kind. Many writers on that site merely have training from "Mises University" and you can see it when they write an article.
Mind actually attacking the LvMI on true grounds rather than your fantasies?

laminustacitus

18th June 2009, 17:37

If you keep replying to the Miseans - you're just going to get the same Misean arguments ad-nauseum with a mix of pseudo-science here and there.
And yet you cannot refute it.

And socialists can't calculate? Socialists have had some of the best mathematicians and logicians in the twentieth century!
That was not the meaning of "Socialism can't calculate;" try again.

Of course, socialism can calculate. Humans have always calculated on what to do with resources. This is nonsense of the highest order.
Socialism cannot calculate prices in a complex industrial economy, that is all that the calculation critique says.

nerditarian

18th June 2009, 18:18

This is why I almost didn't mention why I didn't answer the first one. The standard response with you whiney ****s is: U DUNT NO NUTHIN ABOOT ECONOMICKS!!!11!1!

Well, you don't know anything about work. I know that whatever economic system your proposing, no matter how much bullshit you cover it up in, means that I get less pay, more hours, and have to bust my ass for someone else even harder just to fucking feed myself. Ever hear of poverty champ? No, you've never been there and never will be because mommy and daddy got a nice education and you have your nice little petite-bourgoeios lifestyle going on.

Anyways, you idiots irritate me, so get the fuck off RevLeft.

Fuck you ****! You don't know me, you don't know where I've been, you don't know how much I make! Just because I support capitalism doesn't mean I'm not scraping by in a studio apartment. It doesn't mean I'm not between jobs. It doesn't mean I'm not an ethnic minority. It sure as hell doesn't mean my parents are still alive. So take your ****faced assumptions and shove them up your ass. Least on the market I've been able to ply my trade. You goddamn socialists would have me serve some collective ran by some central planner. Fuck that. Fuck you. Fuck your assumptions.

Notice in most of my other posts I'm calm and collected. I can't deal with shit heads like you assuming untrue things about other people with very little information.

IcarusAngel

18th June 2009, 18:29

What we perceive in ourselves are synthetic a priori truths.

What we perceive inside ourselves is only verifiable by ourselves. Your bizarre opinions may come from some kind of mental problem, but it has nothing to do with the real world.

What you refer to is our sensibilities, not perception per se. Nevertheless, there are synthetic a priori judgements that are necessary for experience to exist in the first place.

No. I meant what we can perceive in the real world may be mistaken, or rather is never truly accurate and cannot be proven. When we see a table, physcists tell us that what we see is based upon our reaction to what the table supposedly consists of - electrons and protons. But what the human eye sees may be something that is very different from what actually exists. That is why scientists describe the world in terms of mathematical properties, not just "what we see."

The social sciences, and physical sciences are two different animals, do not confuse the methods of one for the methods for the other.

What you are saying requires the use of actual science to refute.

Cute, but it does not matter. There are still synthetic a priori truths.

What are your examples of the "a priori" truths - self-ownership? That is based on definitions and a bad philosophy, not any a priori truths.

Axioms must be true before they can lead to truths. Nevertheless, the Action Axiom is irrefutable.

"Self-ownership" is not an axiom of economics. If you think that the Action Axiom is false, then refute it - wait, to refute it you would be applying a means in order to attain an ends, hence validating the axiom.

Axioms are valid because they lead to truths and must be accepted in order to further advance a subject. They may of course be wrong or not applicable in all situations.

Euclidian geometry is an example - it is not true in the nature of space time.

Self ownership is invalid because:

Because I make actions, does not prove that I own myself. I could make actions without owning myself, as do many other creatures in the biological world. This is a concept that is created by social systems, so to study "self-ownership" is like to study "self-esteem" it's really just an abstract notion that has no basis in reality.

You would have to prove that you can't act unless you own yourself, which you cannot do.

This is where Libertarians make a philosophical error. Rothbard claims that in order to be productive human beings, we must "own ourselves.," i.e., x gets us to y. But he doesn't show that y couldn't also get us to z. This is a very basic philosophical error, and it is a logic error.

Furthermore, I also agree that it's contradictory by definition, the owner and the thing that is owned should be two different people.

Finally, I do not agree with have complete control over our bodies, and theoretically it is possible to construct a machine that ultimately could make our movements for us, or make us feel things that aren't really their by stimulating the senses.

Paients who have their legs amputated often talk about still "feeling" their leg like it is their, for example. So I disagree that we are in full control of our bodies or our "senses" when we see things.

Praxeology is indeed a pseudo-science; most people turn to cognitive science to understand human action and behavior, or psychology, not pseudo-science.

Left Libertarians have given similar arguments:

"
For one thing, there is no such thing as the self, at least in the common conception of what the “self” might be. There is no entity somewhere in me called “Francois Tremblay.” What I might associate with my self- my memories, my personality, my capacity to reason, my recognition of other people, and many other things- are all part of an ever-fluctuating mass of neurons. A more sane concept of the self may be to define the self as a process of experience, not as fixed states."

http://francoistremblay.wordpress.com/2008/09/16/self-ownership-is-a-meaningless-concept/

He's right in a certain sense, that the "self" really is just the mind. And the mind acts because it thinks. So saying "humans act" is really just saying humans have a mind to be able to act. Period.

IcarusAngel

18th June 2009, 18:31

Fuck you ****! You don't know me, you don't know where I've been, you don't know how much I make! Just because I support capitalism doesn't mean I'm not scraping by in a studio apartment. It doesn't mean I'm not between jobs. It doesn't mean I'm not an ethnic minority. It sure as hell doesn't mean my parents are still alive. So take your ****faced assumptions and shove them up your ass. Least on the market I've been able to ply my trade. You goddamn socialists would have me serve some collective ran by some central planner. Fuck that. Fuck you. Fuck your assumptions.

Notice in most of my other posts I'm calm and collected. I can't deal with shit heads like you assuming untrue things about other people with very little information.

Here, the Libertarian has had a mental breakdown.

Notice how emotional this Libertarian is, instead of just being "logical," even though the trolls and idiots and Mises.org claim that leftists are "just emotional" and "illogical" - I guess for actually believing in real science.

These Libertarians obviously have mental disturbances. If they had tried to pull this pseudo-science BS at a science forum they'd have been out a long time ago.

IcarusAngel

18th June 2009, 18:38

And yet you cannot refute it.

I don't believe in self-ownership because I have no evidence for it. You can't refute something in which no evidence is provided. But the concept is invalid: It leads to slavery. Because humans exist does not prove they own themselves, etc. You give circular arguments for self-ownership, as in your case the premises and the deduction are basically the same thing. Also the Libertarians are making logical errors:

If you act, you own yourself.
If you own yourself you act.

This is the converse error. Also, neither premise is true, so declare them to be "self-evident axioms."

That was not the meaning of "Socialism can't calculate;" try again.

Socialism cannot calculate prices in a complex industrial economy, that is all that the calculation critique says.

I was joking obviously.

But of course, people can calculate. If a large organization needed computers, they would calculate how many computers that were needed. That is by definition a calculation.

It is in our nature (figure of speech) to calculate and figure things out.

Furthermore, socialism isn't based on monetary exchange. You've confused socialism for your own system.

Even today, there are many large, and free organizations and movements that do not work by market principles and are very successful. And, humans haven't always had capitalism, so that proves empricially that these statements are not truth.

Finally, capitalism and economists make errors all the time that often lead to financial disaster. Such as would be avoided in socialism as in socialism the best ideas would always win out.

nerditarian

18th June 2009, 18:46

Here, the Libertarian has had a mental breakdown.

Notice how emotional this Libertarian is, instead of just being "logical," even though the trolls and idiots and Mises.org claim that leftists are "just emotional" and "illogical" - I guess for actually believing in real science.

These Libertarians obviously have mental disturbances. If they had tried to pull this pseudo-science BS at a science forum they'd have been out a long time ago.

He was the one who made it personal. He is the one who seems to use fuck in every post. Do you damn me and libertarianism because for once I responded in like to his ad hominems and assumptions about who and who isn't a libertarian?

Kwisatz Haderach

18th June 2009, 18:54

Unless of course the OP just wants to check to see if you have any rational reason for your political ideology, and if you are not familiar with what he asked about, then you simply do not.
Yawn. I'm not obligated to be familiar with the delusions of every crackpot who claims you must agree with him in order to be a rational political thinker. Do you have any idea how many of those there are?

Claiming you are correct for reasons you refuse to divulge is a sign of the diseased mind of a fanatic. Present your argument, or fuck off and stop wasting my time.

Sorry, this is reality, not Star Trek. Scarcity is here to stay for there will always be a limited amount of natural resources, yet an unlimited demand for them.
Demand is not unlimited. Demand is limited by people's ability to consume, which is limited by time. Since you cannot do an infinite number of things in a day, your demand for goods and services to be consumed that day is necessarily finite.

Socialism can't calculate, that is the pithy version of the calculation argument so whatever "calculation" you are referring to is a delusion.
More bullshit of the type "I'm right and you're wrong, end of debate." See, this is what shows that Austrian "economics" is a cult. A cult masquarading as science, in the style of creationism or scientology.

Barone, Taylor, Dickinson, Lange, Cottrell and Cockshott say you are the one who is wrong, and I am the one who is right. We can play the argument from authority game all day long.

Computer technology is only as good as the information that you put into the computer, which is where Hayek's thesis about the use of knowledge in society kills it.
If Hayek had the slightest shred of empirical evidence that his thesis about knowledge was correct, you mean. But, of course, he does not. He did not study the human brain. He did not perform any experiments. He sat in a room and imagined what human knowledge might be like.

That is why your cult is based around pseudoscience.

But, you cannot centralize individual valuations.
Sure you can. Ask people what their individual valuations are, and then calculate the average.

There. Was that so hard?

Tacit information is nothing but the knowledge learned by doing the job that cannot be learned otherwise. For instance, riding a bicycle is something that can only be learned by doing it, it is a primitive example of tacit knowledge.
But that kind of information is not relevant to economic planning at all. The central planners are not required to know precisely how one rides a bicycle. They are only required to know that persons A, B and C can ride a bicycle. Perhaps they also need to know how fast those people can ride bicycles, and what resources they need in order to ride bicycles. But the planners don't care how a bicycle is ridden. They care only about inputs and outputs, not the details of the process by which we get from one to the other.

Tacit knowledge is irrelevant to central planning because planners only need to know what can be done, not how it is done. They need to know that you can take X resources and use them to make Y products in Z amount of time. It doesn't matter HOW you do it.

In order to show that tacit knowledge is a problem for central planning, you would have to show that there is some economic process where either the inputs or the outputs are completely unknown (in the sense that no one can tell you what they are). Such a process does not exist. Such a process could not possibly exist, since no one - private individual or state - could possibly engage in an economic process where he does not know what has to be put in or what is expected to come out.

Economics is wertfrei, it should not contain ethical arguments. The calculation problem's consequences exist no matter what our ethical views are.

Again, not an argument against the calculation argument, just a ethical proposition.

Like all of the above, this does not pertain to the economic calculation debate...

And all of them have absolutely no weight whatsoever against the problem of economic calculation, they are all ethical propositions, and economic laws don't care about what ethics an economy professes.
The OP asked me an ethical question unrelated to the economic calculation argument. I gave an ethical answer unrelated to the economic calculation argument.

Learn to pay attention.

IcarusAngel

18th June 2009, 18:55

He was the one who made it personal. He is the one who seems to use fuck in every post. Do you damn me and libertarianism because for once I responded in like to his ad hominems and assumptions about who and who isn't a libertarian?

Well, first of all, for the Miseans even to claim that all of us leftists are "emotional" based upon posts that aren't even emotional is a fallacy to begin with - it is the fallacy of hasty generalization.

Given how the Libertarians are throwing around arguments on this forum and others i would say they are the ones acting irrational. There is nothing intelligent going on in that idiot fest you came from, for example.

Second, leftists have been some of the most logical people in history and invented (or discovered) many things in fields that require more logic than the Misesan trolls could ever understand - physics and analygic philosophy.

Name the famous Libertarian scientists and mathematicians.

Third, I don't see how any one is being irratioanl especially Kwisatz Haderach - he is giving arguments really anybody might give to the Misean claims.

For example, while we might believe in certain a priori truths, one would have to establish exactly how it is a truth, otherwise, anybody could just claim anything is an a priori truth no matter how ridiculous.

nerditarian

18th June 2009, 18:56

I don't believe in self-ownership because I have no evidence for it. You can't refute something in which no evidence is provided. But the concept is invalid: It leads to slavery. Because humans exist does not prove they own themselves, etc. You give circular arguments for self-ownership, as in your case the premises and the deduction are basically the same thing. Also the Libertarians are making logical errors:

If you act, you own yourself.
If you own yourself you act.

This is the converse error. Also, neither premise is true, so declare them to be "self-evident axioms."
Are you saying humans don't act whilst acting? Are you saying humans don't and shouldn't exercise final control over themselves whilst exercising final control over yourself? How...self-contradictory.

I was joking obviously.
Sure............

But of course, people can calculate. If a large organization needed computers, they would calculate how many computers that were needed. That is by definition a calculation.

It is in our nature (figure of speech) to calculate and figure things out.

Furthermore, socialism isn't based on monetary exchange. You've confused socialism for your own system.

Even today, there are many large, and free organizations and movements that do not work by market principles and are very successful. And, humans haven't always had capitalism, so that proves empricially that these statements are not truth.

Finally, capitalism and economists make errors all the time that often lead to financial disaster. Such as would be avoided in socialism as in socialism the best ideas would always win out.

A free price system is the most efficient system for allocating scarce resources. It allows markets to clear and supply to meet demand. Socialists would have to calculate goods based on arbitrary formulas and irrational whims. Fail!

Why do the best ideas win out in socialism?

We've never had pure capitalism. In a mixed economy how do you know that it is capitalism that "often lead[s] to financial disaster" and not the State socialist and corporatist involvement and other central planning in that economy?

Kwisatz Haderach

18th June 2009, 19:16

Are you denying that people act to ends? That's all this axiom means AFAIK. Or do you reject out of hand a priori synthetic propositions?
I am denying that it is possible to know a priori that people act to ends.

Whether or not people act to ends, is a question about a quality of the human species. It is a question about the external universe. Such a question can only be answered empirically.

Because we are both members of the same species, and we all share the same quality of consciousness since we are in the same species.
How do you know that? Such a statement must be proven using empirical evidence. You must study human beings and determine that their biological similarities result in similarities of consciousness. You don't know that a priori.

What we perceive in ourselves are synthetic a priori truths.
What I perceive in myself are synthetic a priori truths. What I perceive in you - not so much.

"I think, therefore you also think" is a non-sequitur.

Just because I support capitalism doesn't mean I'm not scraping by in a studio apartment. It doesn't mean I'm not between jobs. It doesn't mean I'm not an ethnic minority. It sure as hell doesn't mean my parents are still alive.
Correct.

However, if you still support capitalism despite the fact that you are scraping by in a studio apartment, or that you're in between jobs, or that you're an ethnic minority, then it does mean that you are a victim that has come to believe the lies of his own oppressors. I pity you.

Least on the market I've been able to ply my trade. You goddamn socialists would have me serve some collective ran by some central planner.
Yes, and we would also have you live in a bigger house, give you a job whenever you want one, ensure that no one can discriminate against you because of your ethnic origin, and, who knows, maybe even give your parents the health care they would have needed to live longer.

Tell me two things: Do you believe yourself to be a person of above average intelligence, talent, or skill? And do you believe that capitalism rewards such people?

If your answer to both those questions is yes, then, 20 years from now, after capitalism makes a mockery of all your attempts to acquire the wealth you deserve, perhaps you should give us a second thought.

nerditarian

18th June 2009, 19:55

Correct.

However, if you still support capitalism despite the fact that you are scraping by in a studio apartment, or that you're in between jobs, or that you're an ethnic minority, then it does mean that you are a victim that has come to believe the lies of his own oppressors. I pity you.
The reverse is true. You are the victim who believes the lies of his own oppressors. You believe that through a stage of crude communism the oppressor of us and all of our ancestors, the State, can rid the world of evil capitalism and create a socialist utopia of plenty for all.

Yes, and we would also have you live in a bigger house,
I'd rather earn it than take it at someone else's expense. I was starting to make it in my last job and will again soon. And if I can't get the big house I want by my own sweat, by producing value for others, guess what? I should and could continue to make due with what I have now. If that means occassionally shining shoes or using what dough I have to buy a cooler of water and sell it on an exit ramp on a summer day to make money guess what I will!

give you a job whenever you want one,
I'll have a steady job soon and can make work by doing the above if I need to to make rent. I'd rather have a job that comes and goes than have a job brought to me at the expense of others that may not do anything of value.

ensure that no one can discriminate against you because of your ethnic origin, If they don't want me around, screw 'em. What would I want to deal with someone who only doesn't discriminate against me because the gov't tells them not to for? What would I want to deal with someone who conceals their ethnic hatred due to a law for? I'd rather have straight out racists you can tell to shove off.

and, who knows, maybe even give your parents the health care they would have needed to live longer.
Wouldn't you have felt horrible if my parents were murdered or something? :lol::lol:
Hey listen, had the damned licensing State made medicine expensive. libertariannation.org/a/f12l3.html

Tell me two things: Do you believe yourself to be a person of above average intelligence, talent, or skill? And do you believe that capitalism rewards such people?
I honestly do not think I am above average. Just an average Joe. But I do believe capitalism does reward such people.

If your answer to both those questions is yes, then, 20 years from now, after capitalism makes a mockery of all your attempts to acquire the wealth you deserve, perhaps you should give us a second thought.

So far capitalism was doing wonders for me. If it weren't for the gunvernment busting me for not being licensed to sell things, in this case legal things, to innocent consumers I'd still be at my last job. Why would a guy like me, trying to work his way through a couple classes in a shitty apartment as an independent proprietor and stopped by the State ever support allowing any State to gain more power?

trivas7

18th June 2009, 20:03

I am denying that it is possible to know a priori that people act to ends.

Whether or not people act to ends, is a question about a quality of the human species. It is a question about the external universe. Such a question can only be answered empirically.

Then it seems you do indeed reject out of hand apriori synthetic propositions. On what empirical grounds do you hold historical materialism?

RHIZOMES

18th June 2009, 20:50

What a stinking dodge. How do you expect the working class to rally to your cause if you can't intelligently argue w/ those you disagree w/?

I can, but I refuse to engage in Misean intellectual wankery and I really can't be fucked (I have various creative and educational projects going on) arguing with people completely detached from the negatives of capitalism, due to the social strata of society 99% of them come from and/or are going to end up in. Workers can see what is wrong with capitalism every day through their experiences, Miseans mostly cannot, and if they have been fucked over by capitalism they're obviously in denial of reality so there's no point arguing because they're completely set in their beliefs.

Why have the OI forum?

I don't run the board. There are people out there that think revolution will come through arguing with right-wingers so this board is for them.

laminustacitus

19th June 2009, 04:02

I am denying that it is possible to know a priori that people act to ends.

Whether or not people act to ends, is a question about a quality of the human species. It is a question about the external universe. Such a question can only be answered empirically.
In this statement you are acting, you are applying means to achieve an end.

How do you know that? Such a statement must be proven using empirical evidence. You must study human beings and determine that their biological similarities result in similarities of consciousness. You don't know that a priori.
You border on the ridiculous, men all share the same mind, that is a basic truth underlies all philosophy, and epistemology, without which knowledge could not exist objectively, there would be no way for me to teach you that 2+2=4.

However, if you still support capitalism despite the fact that you are scraping by in a studio apartment, or that you're in between jobs, or that you're an ethnic minority, then it does mean that you are a victim that has come to believe the lies of his own oppressors. I pity you.
Finding the truth means finding what is true, not just what suits one's position the best.

Yes, and we would also have you live in a bigger house, give you a job whenever you want one, ensure that no one can discriminate against you because of your ethnic origin, and, who knows, maybe even give your parents the health care they would have needed to live longer.

If your answer to both those questions is yes, then, 20 years from now, after capitalism makes a mockery of all your attempts to acquire the wealth you deserve, perhaps you should give us a second thought.
Politics of envy. You take from one side to give to the other so that the latter will support you without caring about its economic consequences.

RHIZOMES

19th June 2009, 06:43

You border on the ridiculous, men all share the same mind, that is a basic truth underlies all philosophy.

As a student of psychology (You know, the scientific as opposed to abstract and theoretical study of the mind) I can assure you that's bullshit.

mark

19th June 2009, 12:03

There have been some interesting points raised in this discussion. I’d just like to add to my two cents…

Could you tell me how you conclude that Human action is purposeful? I assume this is derived from the human action axiom, as it is assumed that when men choose an end and the corresponding mean that they believe will achieve this or that a selection of an end by definition is purposeful. To me it seems like this relies on the premise that all ends are known prior to the course of the action. If this is the case, then this cannot be something proved a priori but simply by belief.

A pragmatic (William James) account of human action would claim that the meaning of an action cannot be known prior to its commencement. It emphasises fundamental uncertainty; that the consequences and henceforth goals or purpose cannot be known. In fact it is only through the course of the action that meaning of action can be known. As the intentions, preferences, goals and purposes are revealed. This is particularly obvious once we factor in fundamental uncertainty and time – the consequences of an action cannot be known with the action itself but can only be revealed after. The consequences will also change all following action.

A further account of action which would contradict the purposefulness of action, is William James account of habit. Habit is ‘learnt’ through conscious decisions but once it is learnt it requires little conscious attention. It is a sequence or pattern of learnt behaviour as a response to certain stimuli. It economises on the time and energy required for conscious deliberate action. Whilst I see a purpose for habit, I fail to see how habit can be defined as purposeful action. There is no choice made between competing means to achieve a particular ends, rather it is a learnt response/reaction to a particular stimuli.

In stating all this, I am particularly new to James, though so far, I believe it to be an interesting theory of action. I also intend to look into praxeology as well, particularly to see how it corresponds with the Jamesian theory. A little while back I did a quick search on this latter matter, and there were a few articles that came up suggesting a few links between the two.

A free price system is the most efficient system for allocating scarce resources. It allows markets to clear and supply to meet demand. Socialists would have to calculate goods based on arbitrary formulas and irrational whims. Fail!

This of course ignores that all processes in the economy occur through time. It’s based on Say’s law and (ironically for an Austrian) Walras’. For example production begins with a firm taking on debt on the expectation that they will be able to pay off that debt with higher expected sales of their commodities. Your exposition of those two laws ignores the role of uncertainty in decision making and time.

Furthermore it ignores the role of money as a hedge against future uncertainty. Even Menger concedes this point.
What I perceive in myself are synthetic a priori truths. What I perceive in you - not so much.
"I think, therefore you also think" is a non-sequitur.

It's interesting that you bring this up. As it's my belief that Descartes didn't extend his skepiticism far enough. The demon possibility could easily be extended to all your prior memories as well - how do you know that the thoughts you had earlier were actually yours and not implanted by some demon. All you can safely (with an certainty) assume is that you only exist when you consider your thought at the current moment.

Of course I don't believe this, but it's interesting nonetheless.

Green Dragon

19th June 2009, 12:38

trivas7

19th June 2009, 15:29

Could you tell me how you conclude that Human action is purposeful? I assume this is derived from the human action axiom, as it is assumed that when men choose an end and the corresponding mean that they believe will achieve this or that a selection of an end by definition is purposeful. To me it seems like this relies on the premise that all ends are known prior to the course of the action. If this is the case, then this cannot be something proved a priori but simply by belief.

The fact that people act to ends is assumed as an apriori synthetic judgment. It isn't a conclusion and has nothing to do w/ meaning.

laminustacitus

19th June 2009, 16:25

As a student of psychology (You know, the scientific as opposed to abstract and theoretical study of the mind) I can assure you that's bullshit.
Of course, because it is obviously the student of psychology that will know everything, yet who cannot substantiate his claim with a shred of evidence.

Kwisatz Haderach

19th June 2009, 18:04

In this statement you are acting, you are applying means to achieve an end.
Right, I am acting. How do I know you are acting? Can you prove it to me using a priori reasoning?

You border on the ridiculous, men all share the same mind, that is a basic truth underlies all philosophy, and epistemology, without which knowledge could not exist objectively, there would be no way for me to teach you that 2+2=4.
It is a basic truth, but a basic empirical truth. We know that people all share the same mind due to our observations and experiments. We do not know it a priori.

Gravity is a basic truth as well, but it's also an empirical truth. We cannot know that gravity exists a priori. Therefore, any a priori argument that relies on the existence of gravity is fallacious.

You want to have your cake and eat it too. You want to use a priori reasoning while relying on empirical truths. I will not allow you to do that. Your epistemology is incoherent. Embrace empiricism, or give up your use of empirical truths.

Politics of envy. You take from one side to give to the other so that the latter will support you without caring about its economic consequences.
Yeah, yeah, our politics is based on envy, your politics is based on greed, we've all heard it before.

IcarusAngel

19th June 2009, 19:09

Nerditarian and laminustacitus are like the drunk guy in the bar who after being thoroughly beaten for his absurd behavior stands up and asks, 'Who's next?' They are broken records at this point. "Gobblegobble" was another Misean but at least he was smart enough to flee the thread after he couldn't prove his statements and was thoroughly beaten.

There have been some interesting points raised in this discussion. I’d just like to add to my two cents…

Could you tell me how you conclude that Human action is purposeful? I assume this is derived from the human action axiom, as it is assumed that when men choose an end and the corresponding mean that they believe will achieve this or that a selection of an end by definition is purposeful. To me it seems like this relies on the premise that all ends are known prior to the course of the action. If this is the case, then this cannot be something proved a priori but simply by belief.

A pragmatic (William James) account of human action would claim that the meaning of an action cannot be known prior to its commencement. It emphasises fundamental uncertainty; that the consequences and henceforth goals or purpose cannot be known. In fact it is only through the course of the action that meaning of action can be known. As the intentions, preferences, goals and purposes are revealed. This is particularly obvious once we factor in fundamental uncertainty and time – the consequences of an action cannot be known with the action itself but can only be revealed after. The consequences will also change all following action.

This is probably because James taught that we must infer belief from action. James taught that we must 'accept a truth or go with out it,' the truths being accepted usually were meant to further our perosnal ends. This ignores the fact that our actions are constantly based upon probabilities. If I come to a fork in the road and am not sure which way to go, and chose to go left, I don't believe that is the right way, I'm merely making a guess.

Since he taught that 'we must know the truth' what is 'true' can be different for different people. On religion, if you believe in christianity, and I don't, then Christianity is true for you but it isn't true for me. This ignores the fact that we make judgments - both atheists and religious people - on the probablity that they are true or not.

"If I say to you: 'Be a theosophist or be a Mohammedan,' it is probably a dead option, because for you neither hypothosis is likely to be alive. But if I say: 'Be an agnostic or be a Christian,' it is otherwise: trained as you are, each hypothesis makes some appeal, however small, to your belief."

He also taught that what is 'true' is what is profitable to our lives (pragmatisim, 76, 77) and this is how we can discover truths. The pragmatists seemed to incorporate a lot of psychology into their theories and what constitutes 'true belifs' thus relate to their effects on human beings. Truth thus becomes tied up in ethics.

Bertrand Russell I think has a good essay on Pragmatists in his book "Philosophical Essays" which is probably available online.

I think pragmatism makes a lot more sense than praxeology (which would be untrue according to pragmatism as they can't give any evidence for their beliefs) but suffers its own problems.

I agree with you though on what human action implies. Probably we make many actions without knowing of any desired ends.

laminustacitus

19th June 2009, 19:22

Right, I am acting. How do I know you are acting? Can you prove it to me using a priori reasoning?
We all share the same traits of consciousness, logic 101.

It is a basic truth, but a basic empirical truth. We know that people all share the same mind due to our observations and experiments. We do not know it a priori.
It is a prior because we cannot understand the world another way; it is necessarily true.

Gravity is a basic truth as well, but it's also an empirical truth. We cannot know that gravity exists a priori. Therefore, any a priori argument that relies on the existence of gravity is fallacious.
I'm not arguing about physical phenomena.

You want to have your cake and eat it too. You want to use a priori reasoning while relying on empirical truths. I will not allow you to do that. Your epistemology is incoherent. Embrace empiricism, or give up your use of empirical truths.
What empirical truths?

Yeah, yeah, our politics is based on envy, your politics is based on greed, we've all heard it before.
I do not hunger for any more than I have, and I am willing to let someone who has more than me do so. So what greed?

Kwisatz Haderach

19th June 2009, 20:06

We all share the same traits of consciousness, logic 101.
Then prove it without reference to the empirical science of biology. If you can.

laminustacitus

19th June 2009, 20:28

Then prove it without reference to the empirical science of biology. If you can.
It is a necessary a priori truth, I cannot comprehend another person having a different than me.

mark

20th June 2009, 00:29

The fact that people act to ends is assumed as an apriori synthetic judgment. It isn't a conclusion and has nothing to do w/ meaning.

I am curious as to how purpose is derived from the axiom. Could you please demonstrate this to me.

Snip

I’ll be honest, you will most likely know a lot more about James than I do, but from my understanding I don’t think he relied on probabilities for action. I think that he emphasised emotion, he believed that rationalism is not possible without it, and that it is the driver for all action. All conscious actions have to be guided by emotion. All action occurs through time, and all action is confined by fundamental uncertainty - emotion bridges the gap between. It’s our emotions which direct our action and cause us to act in certain ways.

In an economic context, the emotional effect of expectations causes actors to act in a certain way. Confidence expectations of the future would lead to investment, whilst a pessimistic expectation of the future would lead the agent to either not investment at all or reduce their investment activities.

I’ve been introduced to William James from the writings of Jack Barbalet. I think that he makes a convincing case for a jamesian account of human action. Particularly because it emphasises fundamental uncertainty and time.

trivas7

20th June 2009, 00:34

I am curious as to how purpose is derived from the axiom. Could you please demonstrate this to me.

Purpose isn't derived from the axiom. If you mean by purpose the fact that humans act to ends, it's assumed a priori to be true.

Kronos

20th June 2009, 01:21

You guys arguing about whether or not people "act toward ends" are really complicating the matter. Screw James and the rest of them. I'll tell you like it is.

There are two kinds of actions a person can take. Involuntary and voluntary. An involuntary action (swatting a fly, slamming your brakes, flinching, etc.) is one which involved no mediation prior to its execution. A voluntary action is a behavior that is exhibited intentionally, and all intent is toward or for a specific, desired outcome. Therefore, intentionality is teleological.

It doesn't matter whether or not one succeeds in achieving their desired ends. That they meant to act is enough.

How the heck you people started talking about axioms and a prioris and synthetic judgements is beyond me. Probably Kant's fault. Kant is a knucklehead.

attis

20th June 2009, 01:54

Then prove it without reference to the empirical science of biology. If you can.

You have to due to the fact that the given axiom of action in the Misean construct is one that suggests that agents (free will or non) will indeed act. The actions they take depend largely on non-empirical or internalized information. Consider the given situation of one that travels a town by foot, which paths to take, what pace, and even what purpose. All these have contexts loaded in them that cannot be made neatly objective. If this were the case, many computational physicists and mathematicians would have done so. All that one can do is approximate. Sometimes the approximations work on good heuristics, but often they are strongly prefaced on a large set of cases for which the heuristics then are treated as specified to the given contexts involved. This follows similarly to the Dijkstra Algorithm (which 'solves' the Travelling Salesman Problem). Thus, the axiom of action, like the Djikstra Algorithm are based on knowledge which is non-tacit or universal in nature for the set of situations for which they apply. Regardless of the particulars involved.

IcarusAngel

20th June 2009, 05:05

I am curious as to how purpose is derived from the axiom. Could you please demonstrate this to me.

I’ll be honest, you will most likely know a lot more about James than I do, but from my understanding I don’t think he relied on probabilities for action.

I agree but I clearly did not imply that James relied on probablities for action, I said humans do:

"James taught that we must 'accept a truth or go with out it,' the truths being accepted usually were meant to further our perosnal ends. This ignores the fact that our actions are constantly based upon probabilities. "

I was discussing James' theory of truth.

I think that he emphasised emotion, he believed that rationalism is not possible without it, and that it is the driver for all action. All conscious actions have to be guided by emotion. All action occurs through time, and all action is confined by fundamental uncertainty - emotion bridges the gap between. It’s our emotions which direct our action and cause us to act in certain ways.

In an economic context, the emotional effect of expectations causes actors to act in a certain way. Confidence expectations of the future would lead to investment, whilst a pessimistic expectation of the future would lead the agent to either not investment at all or reduce their investment activities.

I’ve been introduced to William James from the writings of Jack Barbalet. I think that he makes a convincing case for a jamesian account of human action. Particularly because it emphasises fundamental uncertainty and time.

This is better than verbal axioms and may be true but I think it may be more complicated than that.

attis

20th June 2009, 18:25

Of course it will be more complicated. In many ways, the problems in economics are not resolved by magical formulas, they're more often solved by heuristics and lateral thinking. Which is why I do find the Austrian theories very compelling. Especially, the work of Hayek on the nature of distributive information, which I will remind everyone here is the bedrock of neural nets and vital segments of information and network theory. So to play intellectually dishonest games that I've seen so far against the Austrians in this thread is to fall to unneeded weakness in the argument so far.

Falling back to positivistic claims also is a non-starter as we're dealing with axioms, for which I believe logical positivism itself also accepts (that they cannot be proven). If the axiom of action is categorically wrong, then it must be shown in the construct of arguments that use it. Find the absurdities that can refute its use. That's how you properly defeat an axiom.

attis

21st June 2009, 19:05

If the axiom was valid, you wouldn't be making false statements like that animals cannot make decisions when they obviously can.

Humans are animals, but not all animals are humans. And not all animals can decide. A cricket is an animal, but it doesn't decide. An Australian Sheep herding dog can decide, and so on. But the Axiom of Action as per Mises' Human Action doesn't exclude non-humans explicitly, rather it's framed in what we can observe in regards to ourselves. As such, you're assertion that it's false is not only a strawman, it's based on pure ignorance of the axiom's author. I suggest you actually download the audio book at the Mises Institute podcasts and listen before making more faulty assertions.

IcarusAngel

21st June 2009, 19:25

Crickets would also make decisions based on sexual selection. These decisions are built into their genes. By the same standard you could say that our decisions are built into their genes. Scientists study all kinds of life forms and use them to make inferences not only of human beings but life in general.

There is no "axiom action." What we perceive is solely limited to ourselves. No two people see a table the same way because of their position, thus seeing differences of light and of shade, etc. All of these are personal whereas scientists try and observe the objective reality.

There is no 'action axiom.' Humans act is an observation, not an axiom. I don't have to go download stuff from the Mises website so see that no logical conclusions could possibly come from.

attis

21st June 2009, 19:37

Crickets would also make decisions based on sexual selection. These decisions are built into their genes.
No they're not. Sexual selection and Natural selection originate in the species and not in the members of the species.

By the same standard you could say that our decisions are built into their genes. Scientists study all kinds of life forms and use them to make inferences not only of human beings but life in general.
Not even wrong (Enrico Fermi), for the fact that genes themselves are highly inefficient to change within the given animal in question, and they don't change due to neurological events as such. Thus, the information the animal acquires dies with that animal. The only thing that passes on is the successful genes that allowed for thought itself to exist, nothing more. As such, the assertion of pure determinism (or unbroken determinism) is not even based in any biological fact. This is well known in the fields of genetics and anthropology. So I suggest you stop with the Coast to Coast Am (with George Noory) claptrap, and start reading some real science journals.

There is no "axiom action." What we perceive is solely limited to ourselves. No two people see a table the same way because of their position, thus seeing differences of light and of shade, etc. All of these are personal whereas scientists try and observe the objective reality.
Yes there is an action axiom, it's part of a logical structure as crafted by Mises. Logic != matter. That's part of your problem in this discussion, as you're a monist and I'm a naturalist (scientific). As such, the very unspoken lexicons we use shoot past each other.

There is no 'action axiom.' Humans act is an observation, not an axiom. You just said half of what Mises wrote down in Human Action as part of the Action axiom. Oh shi-!

I don't have to go download stuff from the Mises website so see that no logical conclusions could possibly come from.

Translation: I will not consider alternatives as my opponent does.

IcarusAngel

21st June 2009, 20:07

No they're not. Sexual selection and Natural selection originate in the species and not in the members of the species.

The article I linked to says MHC genes play a significant role in determining sexual selection. These genes are inherited. There other genes that play a role in sexual selection and even within species there are differences as to what mates to pick.

Not even wrong (Enrico Fermi), for the fact that genes themselves are highly inefficient to change within the given animal in question, and they don't change due to neurological events as such. Thus, the information the animal acquires dies with that animal. The only thing that passes on is the successful genes that allowed for thought itself to exist, nothing more. As such, the assertion of pure determinism (or unbroken determinism) is not even based in any biological fact. This is well known in the fields of genetics and anthropology. So I suggest you stop with the Coast to Coast Am (with George Noory) claptrap, and start reading some real science journals.

I will leave this as your opinions of biology, and nothing more.

Yes there is an action axiom, it's part of a logical structure as crafted by Mises. Logic != matter. That's part of your problem in this discussion, as you're a monist and I'm a naturalist (scientific). As such, the very unspoken lexicons we use shoot past each other.

Mises was not a scientist and set up no logical structure. Human cognitive science is also not based upon setting up these axiom actions. It is your job to show that this "action axiom" leads to logical conclusions about the human condition and is the basis for all of huamn existence.

Mises did not do so which is why it can't be taken seriously.

attis

21st June 2009, 20:15

The article I linked to says MHC genes play a significant role in determining sexual selection. These genes are inherited. There other genes that play a role in sexual selection and even within species there are differences as to what mates to pick.

Genes are selected again, by the SPECIES. Selection both sexual and natural starts at the species level, that is the very basis of modern Biological Evolution (and even Darwin's original formulation).

I will leave this as your opinions of biology, and nothing more.

No, it's fact. Genes don't get changed by neurological events. Sorry, that's well known in the biological sciences. If you don't believe me, then Google it. There's no such thing as genetic memory regardless of how cool Rod Serling made it look in one of his stories/plays.

Mises was not a scientist and set up no logical structure. Mises was an economist, and science has nothing to do with logic. Logic came before natural sciences.

Human cognitive science is also not based upon setting up these axiom actions. It is your job to show that this "action axiom" leads to logical conclusions about the human condition and is the basis for all of huamn existence.

Yes it, by virtue of the fact that each human being thinks and reacts. In the process of thinking (both conscious and unconscious) what is perceived, known/remembered, and considered are all processed, forming plans and contingencies. As such, a human's set of actions can give way to axiomatic propositions.

IcarusAngel

21st June 2009, 20:36

Physics is nearly all logic. Science is logic. Logic is a huge part of science and the beginnings of science and mathematics sprang up TOGETHER. I agree that the scientific method came years later, but most science is differential equations that approximate events that take place in the real world, and math is mostly logic as well - but not complete systems of logic, that has been disproven as well.

Even the fundamental units of science are often based on seemingly arbitrary measures, like Astronomical Units, and have been redefined time and time again, but scientists do this because it is what is most logical within the system.

Without logic nothing would be done in science. Obviously your statement was an error and should be retracted.

As for genes, scientists say that MHC is the sole genetic factor for determining a mate. I'm not sure about humans, but even the scientists who believe other characteristics other than MHC play a role but it is clear genes are a part of it. That is what I said.

You had a chance - since you claimed you were "listening to a Misean speech and programming the computer" - to show the logical conclusions of the Misean axiomatic system, but did not do so. We could only conclude that this "axiom" is also your opinion.

It would be enormously difficult to show that an axiomatic system could apply to humans. Keep in mind that certain systems have been found to be in error even in mathematics, and I've not heard of them being applied to the social sciences outside of Misean economics.

Dimentio

21st June 2009, 21:12

Ownership cannot exist without a formal agreement. A hermit in a forest without any other human beings would not need a formal ownership in order to protect his cabin. Wolves, lions and bears do not care about ownership.

Ownership is a product of society, not of the individual.

IcarusAngel

21st June 2009, 21:17

This is obvious, but that extends to property as well. When capitalists say they 'own' the land, they say they've come to a formal agreement based on their classifications of property. But how they treat property is pretty absurd, and their "decisions" affect everybody else (when it comes to property).

Teaching pseudo-science is fine. It doesn't hurt anybody but the people who agree to listen to it. However, when those beliefs lead to coercion against everybody else in society - in the form of dictatorial property rights - there is a problem.

trivas7

21st June 2009, 22:01

Paul Cockshott

24th September 2009, 09:31

Tungsten

25th September 2009, 13:01

1. Private property is illegitimate. There is no right to own private property. The owners of private property are the ones using aggression to keep everyone else from having access to their property. We aim only to put an end to their aggression.

Private property is material goods purchased using one's own labour. By claiming it's illegitimate, you're saying that one does not own one's own labour and that others have a right to confiscate it if they see fit.

Do I have the right to demand your labour, or the products of that labour and then claim that you're using aggression against me if you refuse? Nice blueprint for a slave state perhaps, but there isn't much demand for that.

And before you come out with the stock answer: "factory owners don't allow workers to keep the products of their labour, so that's slavery" - unless the contract you sign when you start work (under no duress) explains that you are entitled to whatever you make, then no aggression is being used against you unless the employer reneges on their part of contract.

We believe the communist transformation of society will have extremely good consequences. Therefore it will be good. Whether or not we use aggression to achieve it is irrelevant.

So that's it then, anything goes. Thanks for confirming that. Now sit back and watch the bloodbath (and then afterwards complain that it wasn't real communism).

Well here's a problem for you: I, like many others don't think either the goal, nor the methodology is "good".

3. Why not? What's wrong with aggression, anyway?

Why don't you ask the Iraqis?

Paul Cockshott

25th September 2009, 14:23

Private property is material goods purchased using one's own labour.

True in an earlier stage of society not now.

The law protects titles to property obtained through interest payment or rent for example.

IcarusAngel

25th September 2009, 19:05

Skooma Addict

25th September 2009, 19:30

On another forum where a Libertarian was trying to defend 'human action' and self-ownership, he said "To own something means to control it."

This person is wrong.

Havet

25th September 2009, 19:34

On another forum where a Libertarian was trying to defend 'human action' and self-ownership, he said "To own something means to control it."

This is pretty interesting, since it implies you own whatever you control.

iff and if you own something, you control it.
A converse of a definition is true, so:
If you control something, you own it.

Of course, you can control things you do not own, such as a borrowed item. Not only is Libertarianism bad political philosophy, it is bad philosophy altogether. The Libertarian then added a 'homesteading' principle to his original definition (new information) that he says didn't violate the original definition, which it obviously does.

Most of the people at Mises forums have not studied any logic at all, which is why they are unsuccessful at their forum raid attempts.

Even though I don't agree with the natural rights definition most right-libertarians use, the conclusions you are trying to take from that sentence are also based on bad logic.

p: own something
q: control something

p => q =/= q => p

What the misean said is an entailment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entailment)

What you are trying to say is a logical equivalence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_equivalence)

IcarusAngel

25th September 2009, 20:38

No, a definition and its converse are automatically true. He was DEFINING ownership for me.

So, if you try and define something as x, that also means that x is that something.

It's basic logic.

p -> q does not imply
q - > p

This is a converse error.

But when it comes to a definition the converse is true because 'a' the word being defined and 'b' the definition have the same meaning. Hence:

______
|b|
____
|a|
____
______

And also:
______
|a|
____
|b|
______

The first indicates a only if b, because a is inside of b, the second indicates a if b.

There aren't 'two sentences' in his statement. He used one sentence to define it.

Furthermore, when he says that "Ownership means control" that is his definition, and by his own statements it was his 'definition' of ownership, hence the error.

Havet

26th September 2009, 20:59

No, a definition and its converse are automatically true. He was DEFINING ownership for me.

So, if you try and define something as x, that also means that x is that something.

I am not arguing about any definition. I'm merely showing how the logic in your reasoning was bad.

p -> q does not imply
q - > p

This is a converse error.

Actually:

Affirming the consequent, sometimes called converse error, is a formal fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_fallacy), committed by reasoning in the form (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_form):

If P, then Q.
Q.
Therefore, P.

Arguments of this form are invalid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Validity), in that the conclusion (3) does not have to follow even when statements 1 and 2 are true. The simple reason for this is that P was never asserted as the only sufficient condition for Q, so, in general, any number of other factors could account for Q (while P was false).

Anyway, one can clearly see the differences between logical implication (which is what he said) and logical equivalence (which is what you are trying to derive as a conclusion) by looking at their respective truth tables (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_table):

Logical Implication http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_table#Logical_implication

Logical Equality http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_table#Logical_equality

But when it comes to a definition the converse is true because 'a' the word being defined and 'b' the definition have the same meaning. Hence:

______
|b|
____
|a|
____
______

And also:
______
|a|
____
|b|
______

The first indicates a only if b, because a is inside of b, the second indicates a if b.

I actually don't remmember having studied that symbology in Philosophy, but it has nonetheless sparkled my interest. Could you, perhaps, explain it to me, since it is the first time I am seeing such representations?

Furthermore, when he says that "Ownership means control" that is his definition, and by his own statements it was his 'definition' of ownership, hence the error.

Well yes, his definition of ownership fails, because it assumes there can be an objective definition of ownership to start with.

In any case, X means Y is often translated as an implication (hence my remark), whereas to mean an equivalence would resemble something like X "is equal to" or "is the same as" Y.

Anyway, it's not HUGELY important, just a future reference.

Nwoye

26th September 2009, 21:30

No, a definition and its converse are automatically true. He was DEFINING ownership for me.
no actually. a square is a rectangle, but a rectangle is not always a square; a dog is an animal, but an animal is not always a dog; ownership is control, but control is not always ownership. see what i mean?

IcarusAngel

26th September 2009, 23:21

no actually. a square is a rectangle, but a rectangle is not always a square; a dog is an animal, but an animal is not always a dog; ownership is control, but control is not always ownership. see what i mean?

That is the "is a" relationship. While a square is a rectangle that is not the same thing as saying that the definition of a square is a rectangle.

Mathematicians deliberately ensure that the definition and the word being defined are the same thing. Here is the actual definition of a square:

definition:

a precise statement of the meaning of an expression (the definiendum) in terms equivalent to it.
(emphasis mine)

Dictionary of the mathematics.

Here is the actual definition of square:

1. A plane geometic figure with four sides of equal length and four right angles; an equilateral rectangle or an equiangular rhombus.

This, if a figure is a geometic figure with four sides of equal length and four right angles, an equilateral rectangle or an equiangular rhombus, THEN it is a square, and the converse is also true.

(This is why the converse error doesn't apply.)

A square is only a rhombus under certain conditions that fit the definition of a square and could be I assume superseded by it, so it is a special case of a rectangle and only that definition can be used.

This is all from mathematics, but "if and only if" is not only used in mathematics it used in logic as well and I believe one of its first uses came from someone working with logic in relation to words.

To say ownership and controlling something is the same thing is also a fallacy and lexicographers also have an interest in ensuring that definitions are distinct.

Thus, a square doesn't MEAN rectangle, it means a special case of it. And a dog doesn't MEAN animal, it MEANS a certain kind of animal which is included in the definition.

IcarusAngel

27th September 2009, 00:25

Well yes, his definition of ownership fails, because it assumes there can be an objective definition of ownership to start with.

His definition of ownership is false because it implies ownership means control.

If that were true, these sentences would mean the same thing:

I control this char.

I own this chair.

They do NOT mean the same thing, hence his definition is false.

(Introduction to logic, Gensler, Page 300.)

I must have studied the 'bad logic' books - but the logic I have used has always sufficied in the real world so I just use what works.

Affirming the consequent, sometimes called converse error, is a formal fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_fallacy), committed by reasoning in the form (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_form):

If P, then Q.
Q.
Therefore, P.
Arguments of this form are invalid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Validity), in that the conclusion (3) does not have to follow even when statements 1 and 2 are true. The simple reason for this is that P was never asserted as the only sufficient condition for Q, so, in general, any number of other factors could account for Q (while P was false).

Are you saying my explanation of the converse error was invalid.

First of all the symbology we use in dsicrete mathematics is the following

~p (not p)

p -> q (if p then q)
q -> p (if q then p)

Don't Confuse Transposition with these invalid Ones: Converse: If A then B NOT = If B then A

http://www.class.uh.edu/phil/garson/CT.Lec245.htm

How was my explanation incorrect?

If a then b, is not if b then a.

I think you're coming from more of a philosophy background. However, a converse of a statement is not necessarily true in mathematics:

See:

http://whyslopes.com/volume1a/ch21c_Tables_And_Converses.html

http://www2.edc.org/makingmath/mathtools/conditional/conditional.asp

Havet

27th September 2009, 12:17

His definition of ownership is false because it implies ownership means control.

Yeah sure, whatever. You cannot, however, show he is wrong by claiming that "ownership means contro"l is the same as "control means ownership". Capisce?

If that were true, these sentences would mean the same thing:

I control this char.

I own this chair.

They do NOT mean the same thing, hence his definition is false.

(Introduction to logic, Gensler, Page 300.)

If my statement is true (which means there isn't any objective definition of property), it merely means property arrangements only exist due to intersubjective populace consensus, or due to State-enforced laws.

However, in the case of the State, or of feudalism, the "arguments" for property are flawed, because one can't logically prove that he OWNS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property) something because he comes from royalty, or because he can talk to god, or because he found it first, or because he can use force to defend it. There is no such thing as natural rights.

Are you saying my explanation of the converse error was invalid.

p -> q (if p then q)
q -> p (if q then p)

Don't Confuse Transposition with these invalid Ones: Converse: If A then B NOT = If B then A

http://www.class.uh.edu/phil/garson/CT.Lec245.htm

How was my explanation incorrect?

If a then b, is not if b then a.

Listen, this cannot be possibly made to understand any simpler:

Someone claims Ownership (p) means (=>) Control (q)

And you claimed that control (q) therefore means (=>) ownership (p) as an argument to show his reasoning was wrong.

Well his reasoning was in fact wrong, but the way you were trying to prove it was also wrong, because the converse of an implication (if a then b) is not necessarily true.

I think you're coming from more of a philosophy background. However, a converse of a statement is not necessarily true in mathematics:

See:

http://whyslopes.com/volume1a/ch21c_Tables_And_Converses.html

http://www2.edc.org/makingmath/mathtools/conditional/conditional.asp

Precisely what I claimed since the beginning of the post.

trivas7

27th September 2009, 15:11

There will be no mythic communism where the problems of scarcity, and human nature will be cured; its a fantasy.
Agreed.

IcarusAngel

27th September 2009, 23:50

Yeah sure, whatever. You cannot, however, show he is wrong by claiming that "ownership means contro"l is the same as "control means ownership". Capisce?

If my statement is true (which means there isn't any objective definition of property), it merely means property arrangements only exist due to intersubjective populace consensus, or due to State-enforced laws.

Actually the equivalency test is a good standard to use. It has its shortcomings (when not related to mathematics) such as when a word has multiple meanings, you have to use it in the same context, but it is generally a good path to follow for lexicographers.

However, in the case of the State, or of feudalism, the "arguments" for property are flawed, because one can't logically prove that he OWNS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property) something because he comes from royalty, or because he can talk to god, or because he found it first, or because he can use force to defend it. There is no such thing as natural rights.

I agree. However, you could at least have a definition of ownership as meaning 'an item controlled under the law' without it being contradictory.

The problem with 'Miseans' is that they have their own axioms and conclusions, that are either questionable at best, or contradict well known facts and theories at worst. That is why it can be avoided.

i'll leave the rest as your opinions on modern logic and definitions.