How Libertarians Vote

[Nolan]

http://www.leftycartoons.com/wp-content/uploads/how_libertarians_vote.png

[Dean]

Nice comic, but you should also leave your own comments. The forum is not just a place to drop images.

[Merces]

Pathetic comic.

[Jia]

http://www.amptoons.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/libertarian_housepets.png

[Nolan]

Pathetic comic.

Pathetic response.

[Nolan]

Nice comic, but you should also leave your own comments. The forum is not just a place to drop images.

Sorry, I was hoping it would start a discussion about how the libertarians always seem to play into the hands of the neocons.

[Crusade]

I demand more of these comics. I will not take no for an answer. :mad:

EDIT

Ah nvm I followed the link of the cartoon. http://www.leftycartoons.com :D

[Axle]

That comic is too fucking right.

Back in '07-'08, a Libertarian friend of mine was all up in arms over Ron Paul, saying that he'd write him in on the ballot if he had to. Needless to say, on election day he went out and voted McCain/Palin. "Fiscal responsibility" and all. Or maybe a tax break...you can never have too many tax breaks when you're a college student working for minimum wage and living with your parents.

[Dimentio]

I think it has been a little too many threads about libertarians recently. That is unsettling me, since libertarians - despite everything - still are a marginal tendency which shouldn't be given undue promotion.

[IcarusAngel]

Well, the revleft capitalists that post here (hayenmill, Olaf, etc.) are free-market capitalists, not democratic-capitalists (yes there is a difference on fundamental assumptions etc.), which warrants responding to them.

Libertarians are best at trolling on line but they've taken a beating on many website where people do not favor handing all power over to corporations.

[Zanthorus]

This is sort of off-topic but am I the only one irritated by the use of the word "libertarian" by people on the right and left to refer to small/no government private property types?

It only enforces the myth that they're for "freedom" and we're against "freedom".

The fact is that right-libertarianism is not for freedom at all. They're in favour of a rather narrow kind of "freedom" which is defined quite as the absence of agression, where agression is intended to mean initiatory violence against person or property. However their "freedom" allows people absolute authoritarian control over their property and all the people within it and they diminish the role of the legitimacy of the state simply to an issue of rightful acquisition. The right-"libertarian" couldn't object to the state if said state was formed by a corporation buying up all the land on the "free market". The emphasis of right-libertarians isn't on liberty but more narrowly property. The proper term for such people is propertarian.

[IcarusAngel]

This is sort of off-topic but am I the only one irritated by the use of the word "libertarian" by people on the right and left to refer to small/no government private property types?

No. It's one of the things I like to criticize them about. However, I try and criticize only their ideology, I generally don't enter into debates about whether they should use the term or not.

For example, I might say, "Libertarianism will lead to extreme tyranny...," and of course I'm referring to Libertarian-capitalists, not libertarians who advocate a system that is distinctly anti-capitalist and pro-equality.


It only enforces the myth that they're for "freedom" and we're against "freedom".

Yes. Many people have questioned the Libertarian conception of "freedom," their notion of private property as a "negative liberty," their belief that property is not "coersion" and so on here:

http://world.std.com/~mhuben/quotes.html

[Havet]

well, the revleft capitalists that post here (hayenmill, olaf, etc.)

oh my god!!!

I own a means of production???

Where??? Where??? I want it!!!

[Skooma Addict]

oh my god!!!

I own a means of production???

Where??? Where??? I want it!!!

I was excited as well until I thought of a more likely possibility. Icarus does not know what a capitalist is.

[IcarusAngel]

A capitalist is also "an advocate of capitalism."

The fact is you both believe in Misean economics. I was actually "debating" a Misean economist today who said that he "doesn't need to give proof" that private property is the foundation of society, because it's a necessary "social order" of humans, and that applying mathematics and statistics to society is all a junk science.

Notice how Miseans absolutely despise science and mathematics, and I've noticed that with Olaf and hayenmill. This is because these fields have moved beyond the idea that everything is A = A (obviously an object is the same as itself but that's different than saying a dog is exactly like another dog, the law of identity can take us only so far) and praxeology (which never was taken seriously) nonsense that modern Libertarians believe in.

[Skooma Addict]

A capitalist is also "an advocate of capitalism."

Wrong.

[Nolan]

Hayenmill, do you agree with Misean economics?

[IcarusAngel]

I guess I'm a die-hard experimental mathematician, but look at equations of a second degree:

http://science.jrank.org/pages/6287/Solution-Equation-Solving-second-degree-higher-equations.html


In this case, if the x is on the left side, the set of x values could be greater than the set of y values. basic set theory indicates that the sets are not the same.

If all math is A = A, are you talking about the ultimate meaning of the left side, because the left side would have a different form, and two different x values will produce your answer. Or maybe there is no solution, which is different than saying a = a or not a = not a.

And what about Matrices? A Matrix, which is not unlike the movie the Matrix, will change meaning, not just "form," if you alter it, but it can still lead you to where you need to be going provided you follow the rules. I guess in that case you could say you had Matrix A, and Matrix B.

But what about when there are theorems that do not devolve down into the lower level "axioms"? This is the most damaging of all to the Misean belief system, and if shown to be correct, which many assume it has, all Misean beliefs would come crumbling down.

Set theory has tended to capture the public's imagination. it has more uses than a lot of mathematics, but they are working on areas other than that that are much more interesting and difficult, but leftists and rightists are still obsessed with it:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/anti-dialectics-and-t128235/index4.html



Yeah, you can prove that the square root of 2 is irrational quite easily, and this has a profound implication on set theory as well as it divides the irrational numbers and rational numbers into two different sets. And if you have a set Q of real numbers and a union of a smaller set, like whole, it would equal Q, and the set of rational numbers could include both of them.

The existence of irratioanl numbers has existed for 2 thousand years but mathematicians build upon their foundations, so I don't see the need to constantly bring it up.

[IcarusAngel]

^Final point:

You can prove the square root of 2 is irrational. I've not seen proof that any equation is the same as A = A.



Hayenmill, do you agree with Misean economics?


Of course you have abscribe free-markets to Misean beliefs. That is why the mods at Left-libertarian forums are Mises institute members. All other theories of markets are based in politics, only Misean economics assumes the market as a priori (prior to all human existence) and that violation of the market will always lead to disaster. All rights are property rights in this theory.

If I had a set of Christian beliefs, it doesn't matter if I've read the bible, it's obvious where my beliefs come from, and they could have only come from Christian dogma, not Islamic dogma or Buddhist dogma.

So in Misean reasoning:

Economics > Politics > science, etc...

(In this line of thinking, everything is basically a sub-domain of economics.

Everthing that exists, including the universe, can be explained in terms of economic law, which some dispute even exists.)

In modern political theory:

Politics and science > Then economics (how goods are distributed, etc.)...

[Skooma Addict]

Icarus, you are not making any sense. Neither I nor Hayenmill believes in "Misean" economics (I assume this is a strict follower of Ludwig von Mises).


Of course you have abscribe free-markets to Misean beliefs. That is why the mods at Left-libertarian forums are Mises institute members. All other theories of markets are based in politics, only Misean economics assumes the market as a priori (prior to all human existence) and that violation of the market will always lead to disaster. All rights are property rights in this theory.

Prior to all human existence? What?


So in Misean reasoning:

Economics > Politics > science, etc...

(In this line of thinking, everything is basically a sub-domain of economics.

Everthing that exists, including the universe, can be explained in terms of economic law, which some dispute even exists.)

In modern political theory:

Politics and science > Then economics (how goods are distributed, etc.)...

This just makes no sense. I have no idea what you are talking about here.

[IcarusAngel]

I'm talking about how Miseans assume there exists a priori axioms that we all must follow. A misean economist sent me this:

"I could tell you studied political science (that or law) because of your statist ideology: you must understand that politics is at BEST a necessary evil, the kratia of democracy has always been a destructive and bellicose influence on society thus America has a Constitution penned by classical liberals and therefore America prospered."

He then started ranting about how American law students don't understand liberty (how he inferred I'm a law student is beyond me because reading a book on Locke doesn't mean you're even studying politics let alone law).

This is what doesn't make sense. First of all the Misean gives no evidence that economics is dominant over all other fields. Second, politics is not the same thing as dmeocracy. Third, he provides no evidence that it's politics and not property that slows history (history shows that the greatest advancements were during the Greeks, who had democracy, and also during the enlightenment with free ideas and exchange, when elitist property ruled the world it was the dark ages, and this guy is supposedly a Misean "historian").

Anyway, a priori experience means prior to all human experience. So that's what I was talking about.

For example, you can't know about the natural world if you didn't have your senses. You could only make guesses. But you could know about mathematics and other a priori rules if you didn't have your senses, you could come up with them in your head, they are prior to human experience.

Of course, I don't agree with this, and I especially don't agree that there are any political axioms that are prior to all experience.

[IcarusAngel]

Wrong.


"an advocate of capitalism. "

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/capitalist


When you start arguging with the dictionary over definitions you have no credibility left, especially when it's just how the word "capitlaist" can be used.

You don't want to debate an axiomatic system because you know you would immediately fail to prove anything.

[Skooma Addict]

I'm talking about how Miseans assume there exists a priori axioms that we all must follow. A misean economist sent me this:

"I could tell you studied political science (that or law) because of your statist ideology: you must understand that politics is at BEST a necessary evil, the kratia of democracy has always been a destructive and bellicose influence on society thus America has a Constitution penned by classical liberals and therefore America prospered."

He then started ranting about how American law students don't understand liberty (how he inferred I'm a law student is beyond me because reading a book on Locke doesn't mean you're even studying politics let alone law).Okay. Cool story?


This is what doesn't make sense. First of all the Misean gives no evidence that economics is dominant over all other fields. Second, politics is not the same thing as dmeocracy. Third, he provides no evidence that it's politics and not property that slows history (history shows that the greatest advancements were during the Greeks, who had democracy, and also during the enlightenment with free ideas and exchange, when elitist property ruled the world it was the dark ages, and this guy is supposedly a Misean "historian").Economics does not dominate over all other fields. I don't really care about what else your friend said.



Anyway, a priori experience means prior to all human experience. So that's what I was talking about.That is not what you said though.


"an advocate of capitalism. "

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/capitalist


When you start arguging with the dictionary over definitions you have no credibility left, especially when it's just how the word "capitlaist" can be used.

You don't want to debate an axiomatic system because you know you would immediately fail to prove anything. Just stick with the academic definition....

"a person who has capital, esp. extensive capital, invested in business enterprises."

[IcarusAngel]

New message from Misean:


You may find the epistemological reasoning for this ideology to be not altogether convincing. But when you see the practical nature of these theories, the devastating criticism they make on various forms of counter-productive government interventions whose espousers are completely ignorant of economics, you then see why the epistemology is hardly the be all end all, but is rather the cherry on the top of the Austrian School of economic thought which along with all other economists, criticises most unsparingly the ignorant assaults on the free market made by government. I am sure you are not so ignorant as to actually support these policies so I need not elaborate further.

And remember, no other school of economic thought is so holistic or profound in its approach and that is why Austrian economics is so practical, valid and ever-correct: it is based on true economic principles, praxeology.


This is another message I got from a Misean just now.

These people are absolutely, cultish, and dogmatic. This makes economics akin to a religious discipline, rather than a serious field of study.

I put him in his place when he claimed that Rousseau led to Marx and Locke led to Mises, but I doubt I'm going to respond to this voodooism, merely showing how insane it is.

[Nolan]

And remember, no other school of economic thought is so holistic or profound in its approach and that is why Austrian economics is so practical, valid and ever-correct: it is based on true economic principles, praxeology.

That is the most cultish thing I've ever seen from anyone debating economics or politics, left or right. No Marxist I've ever met is so inflexibly dogmatic. These people scare me.

[Skooma Addict]

That is the most cultish thing I've ever seen from anyone debating economics or politics, left or right. No Marxist I've ever met is so inflexibly dogmatic. These people scare me.

I have met far more dogmatic/cultish Marxists.

[Die Rote Fahne]

http://www.amptoons.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/libertarian_freedom.png

Most "Libertarians" are just retarded capitalists who would sooner make a profit off of a lack of civil rights than have full civil rights and economic equality.

[IcarusAngel]

^^Haha Yeah. That's one of the best one's he's done and the one most appealing to leftists of all stripes.

[Havet]

Hayenmill, do you agree with Misean economics?

I agree with the mutualist synthesis of austrian and marxist theories on monopoly capitalism (http://www.mutualist.org/id10.html). I derive my economics from that, besides some other historical examples/facts.

[Havet]

Notice how Miseans absolutely despise science and mathematics, and I've noticed that with Olaf and hayenmill.

I don't despise science and mathematics. You do.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

New message from Misean:



This is another message I got from a Misean just now.

These people are absolutely, cultish, and dogmatic. This makes economics akin to a religious discipline, rather than a serious field of study.

I put him in his place when he claimed that Rousseau led to Marx and Locke led to Mises, but I doubt I'm going to respond to this voodooism, merely showing how insane it is.

How did you get in contact with this Misean economist lol?

Please, please tell me he's actually some properly trained Austrian economist from the "Mises university" or whatever they're "school" is called, and is still coming out with this crap?

[Jazzratt]

Just stick with the academic definition....

"a person who has capital, esp. extensive capital, invested in business enterprises."

Why? That's pretty unecessary pedantry given that most posts on this forum are in an informal tone.

Honestly I don't care about whatever your latest shitflinging exercise is because, as Dimentio pointed out, your politics are an irrelavence. It just strikes me that you're being unreasonably petty.

[Skooma Addict]

Why? That's pretty unecessary pedantry given that most posts on this forum are in an informal tone.

Honestly I don't care about whatever your latest shitflinging exercise is because, as Dimentio pointed out, your politics are an irrelavence. It just strikes me that you're being unreasonably petty.

So you want me to let others call me a capitalist then?

[IcarusAngel]

How did you get in contact with this Misean economist lol?

Please, please tell me he's actually some properly trained Austrian economist from the "Mises university" or whatever they're "school" is called, and is still coming out with this crap?

I don't know if he's trained at Mises University. He's British, so I doubt it. He started spamming my youtube channel with Misean nonsense.

I posted some of his kooky and crazy quotes on Mises media, though, as well as some of Mises' racists statements and statements supportig fascism.

The fact that he's NOT trained at Mises University (originally he claimed to be studying history but he changed it to economics of course) proves that Miseans don't even attempt to hide their absurd beliefs.

[IcarusAngel]

I don't despise science and mathematics. You do.

Well good. You can explain your insinuation that a=a is the same as a^2 + b^2 = c^2.

Make sure you maintain at least a high school level of rigor in your proof.

[Havet]

Well good. You can explain your insinuation that a=a is the same as a^2 + b^2 = c^2.

Make sure you maintain at least a high school level of rigor in your proof.

I NEVER insinuated that A=A <=> a^2+b^2=c^2.

I said that all mathematics come FROM the law of identity, not that they are equivalent/same/equal...

Once again IcarusAngel shows how good he is at inventing arguments so that he can easily refute them.

[IcarusAngel]

Which is a logicians' insinuation, not a mathematical statement. Mathematicians only care about what they can prove and what makes sense from a mathematics standpoint, not where numbers come from. That's for philosophers and logicians to decide.

Austrian economics is based on a series of Axioms by their own admission. If not even mathematics is purely axiomatic, surely there wouldn't be a set of axioms for human nature in "economic science."

Godels theorem not only crippled logicism, but the entire framework under which Mises based his theoretical models.

[Jazzratt]

So you want me to let others call me a capitalist then?

That is, in fact, what I'm saying.

[Left-Reasoning]

Hayenmill, do you agree with Misean economics?

I think it is important to point out that you can be an adherent to the Austrian School of Economics and vehemently oppose capitalism.

[IcarusAngel]

I think it is important to point out that you can be an adherent to the Austrian School of Economics and vehemently oppose capitalism.

I don't know what's more deceptive: the Austrian economic belief that capitalism is "natural" and part of "human nature" or the claim that you can believe in capitalist axioms and not be a capitalist.

[IcarusAngel]

I agree with the mutualist synthesis of austrian and marxist theories on monopoly capitalism (http://www.mutualist.org/id10.html). I derive my economics from that, besides some other historical examples/facts.

So in other words he has now admitted he's an austrian economist (this is appealing to these people because no math is required) and he gets his assumption from Misean axioms - like the idea of "perfect competition."

[Zanthorus]

I think it is important to point out that you can be an adherent to the Austrian School of Economics and vehemently oppose capitalism.

Well I know Von Wieser advocated minimal government interference in areas where natural monopoly existed, so by the usual libertarian definition of capitalism as a free-market (Funnily enough even Von Mises did not share this definition. He said the distinction between socialism and capitalism was the existence of a stock market which implied a market in capital goods) Von Wieser did not support capitalism.

Apart from that I can't think of any examples.

[IcarusAngel]

Well I know Von Wieser advocated minimal government interference in areas where natural monopoly existed, so by the usual libertarian definition of capitalism as a free-market (Funnily enough even Von Mises did not share this definition. He said the distinction between socialism and capitalism was the existence of a stock market which implied a market in capital goods) Von Wieser did not support capitalism.

And from a political science perspective (and Marxian perspective) he would be supporting the only type of capitalism that could logically exist - like how today's capitalism exists.

A logical "debate" with these people is pointless unless they can tell you what their axioms mean, and where they are going, but like any economic theory you get 20 different answers when you ask them, so really they have no idea what "perfect competition" even is.

[Zanthorus]

So in other words he has now admitted he's an austrian economist (this is appealing to these people because no math is required) and he gets his assumption from Misean axioms - like the idea of "perfect competition."

Can I just point out that there are actually two branches of Austrian economics. The first is the "causal-realistic" school of Bohm-Bawerk and Von Mises which relies on a prioristic reasoning and eschews mathematical models and formalism. This is the one that most of the internet nutcases believe in. The other one is the general-equilibrium school of guys like Friedrich Von Wieser and Hayek. This part of the Austrian school is so close to mainstream neo-classical economics that at one point Hayek actually said that there were essentially no differences left and that all the best insights of neo-classicism had been imported into Austrianism and vice versa. Hence why Hayek emphasised the problem of information distribution in the econcalc debate while Mises kept asserting that the information needed didn't even exist without a market.

Just something to keep in mind, the guys you see on the internet representing the Austrian school don't represent the entire austrian school. The internet tends to have that effect of magnifying the voices of the mentally defective and minimising the voices of the sane (Well, this assumes that even mainstream free-market theory is sane, which is a debatable point, but it makes more sense than misesean economics).

[IcarusAngel]

I'm aware of this "division" from reading Mike Huben's site. However, hayenmill would have to be in the von Mises "axiomatic" camp, not the hayek camp, as hayek advocated a place for government that is indeed closer to mainstream economics. Hayenmill has also claimed that economists are "flawed" because they advocate government regulation. He clearly believes in the axiomatic approach.

I read one of Mises books online and they are books broken up into sections on various topics. His books are ideological works where he rails against the scientific method, makes extremely controversial claims without backing them up (which are taken as axioms on the Mises forums), and even touches on "racial theory" and claims it's a "true science. "

[Havet]

So in other words he has now admitted he's an austrian economist (this is appealing to these people because no math is required) and he gets his assumption from Misean axioms - like the idea of "perfect competition."

Wrong

[IcarusAngel]

Basically your reasoning comes from the 15th century Salamanca school. This, combined with a misinterpretation of descartes, is where modern Misean a priori reasoning obviously comes from. You're one step above voodoo cult dances.

Open question: didn't david hume show the faults of a priori reasoning even for philosophy?

[Havet]

Basically your reasoning comes from the 15th century Salamanca school. This, combined with a misinterpretation of descartes, is where modern Misean a priori reasoning obviously comes from.

So you think that marxist theory on monopoly capitalism comes from the 15th century Salamanca school?

You just keep getting better, haha.

[IcarusAngel]

The Misean reasoning is very similar to the Salamanca school. They had the same methodology.

Interestingly, a Misean on youtube told me that Austrian economics is actually very popular in Europe because of this connection. Now, many Swedish people have commented on my videos. One of them is an economist in Europe, so I asked him about the Austrian school.

He said you Europeans treat the austrian school with the same contempt we Americans do. He also noted that even many righties like Nozick, Popper, and Friedman thought the Austrian economics were cranks. He said Paul Samuelson, and some Keynesian stuff is popular over there. This seems to make sense.

Here in America even Brian Caplan and other ancaps have distanced themselves from the Austrian and Salamanca schools. You guys are clearly kooks and are not even of the mainstream of the right.

[Havet]

The Misean reasoning is very similar to the Salamanca school. They had the same methodology.

Interestingly, a Misean on youtube told me that Austrian economics is actually very popular in Europe because of this connection. Now, many Swedish people have commented on my videos. One of them is an economist in Europe, so I asked him about the Austrian school.

He said you Europeans treat the austrian school with the same contempt we Americans do. He also noted that even many righties like Nozick, Popper, and Friedman thought the Austrian economics were cranks. He said Paul Samuelson, and some Keynesian stuff is popular over there. This seems to make sense.

Here in America even Brian Caplan and other ancaps have distanced themselves from the Austrian and Salamanca schools. You guys are clearly kooks and are not even of the mainstream of the right.

Do you think that if you keep pretending that i'm a Misean, that it will become reality? Because it won't.

[Left-Reasoning]

So in other words he has now admitted he's an austrian economist (this is appealing to these people because no math is required) and he gets his assumption from Misean axioms - like the idea of "perfect competition."

Mises never assumed perfect competition.

[Left-Reasoning]

Well I know Von Wieser advocated minimal government interference in areas where natural monopoly existed, so by the usual libertarian definition of capitalism as a free-market (Funnily enough even Von Mises did not share this definition. He said the distinction between socialism and capitalism was the existence of a stock market which implied a market in capital goods) Von Wieser did not support capitalism.

Apart from that I can't think of any examples.

On Wieser:

"On a Catholic-conservative foundation, he was an interventionist liberal of a strongly nationalist variety, with a considerable admixture of racist feelings, who, moreover, could still admire Marx and play around with social-revolutionary rhetoric. Above all, however, he was a statist, who believed in the wisdom of the state machinery guided by a wise bureaucracy (coming from his own caste)." - Streissler[1]

[1] http://mises.org/daily/4113

[IcarusAngel]

How does that prove Wieser said anything that was incorrect? That is the only way "markets" can exist - with government protection, and it's best to have some "state guided machinery" as this has proven to be the most effective way for capitalist societies to function.

What you posted is meaningless.

[Left-Reasoning]

How does that prove Wieser said anything that was incorrect? That is the only way "markets" can exist - with government protection, and it's best to have some "state guided machinery" as this has proven to be the most effective way for capitalist societies to function.

What you posted is meaningless.

I apologize for the misunderstanding, comrade. I was not trying to be antagonistic, merely clarify Wieser's position.

[IcarusAngel]

How does calling him a "statist" and a "racist" clarify his position considering that von Mises was also a statist and a racist?

[John_Jordan]

Open question: didn't david hume show the faults of a priori reasoning even for philosophy?

That would be an amazing feat and I certainly have never heard such a thing. What "faults" are in a priori reasoning, and how did Hume show them to exist?

[Left-Reasoning]

How does calling him a "statist" and a "racist" clarify his position considering that von Mises was also a statist and a racist?

I am not here to defend Mises.

Someone mentioned Wieser being more accepting of state intervention than other Austrians and so I provided a quote from an article I had read recently about the subject to clarify his position.

[LeftSideDown]

And from a political science perspective (and Marxian perspective) he would be supporting the only type of capitalism that could logically exist - like how today's capitalism exists.

A logical "debate" with these people is pointless unless they can tell you what their axioms mean, and where they are going, but like any economic theory you get 20 different answers when you ask them, so really they have no idea what "perfect competition" even is.

Perfect competition doesn't exist.

Scratch that, maybe as an idea... kind alike communism :D.

[Comrade Anarchist]

the comic is fucking stupid. true libertarians would A) not vote B) if they did vote would vote libertarian and C) would actually understand basic math and could tell that all the actions mentioned by the republican would lead to an expanding of government and lead to an eventual police state. The libertarian party is pretty much a small government liberal democrat. Being an anarchist im vehemently opposed to all government all together, and i am appalled and disgusted by anyone no matter their ideology that would vote for a regime oppressive toward gays, women, minorities and a regime that would create a police state with a neo-conservative foreign policy.

[Agnapostate]

Mises never assumed perfect competition.

Perfect competition is a neoclassical doctrine. However, many Misesian doctrines have about the same relevance to reality as the more utopian neoclassical doctrines. That's a critical reason for their marginality; almost no aspect of Austrian "economics" is based on sound economic reasoning.


i am appalled and disgusted by anyone no matter their ideology that would vote for a regime oppressive toward gays, women, minorities and a regime that would create a police state with a neo-conservative foreign policy.

That would include the man in your avatar. (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/ir/Ch5.html)

Study up, phony anarchist.

[Left-Reasoning]

Perfect competition is a neoclassical doctrine. However, many Misesian doctrines have about the same relevance to reality as the more utopian neoclassical doctrines.

Such as?


That's a critical reason for their marginality;

What does that have to do with marginal utility? Do you mean that that is the reason why it is not mainstream?


almost no aspect of Austrian "economics" is based on sound economic reasoning.

Proof?

[Comrade Anarchist]

That would include the man in your avatar. (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/ir/Ch5.html)
Study up, phony anarchist.

I know he advocated for voting, but as i said if they vote then they vote libertarian which is the party he helped form.

[Zanthorus]

I know he advocated for voting, but as i said if they vote then they vote libertarian which is the party he helped form.

Looks like old comrade doesn't know who David Duke is :lol:

Why not have a read through of the wiki article:


David Ernest Duke (born July 1, 1950) is an American white nationalist, former Grand Wizard of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan,[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Duke&oldid=348884598#cite_note-2)[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Duke&oldid=348884598#cite_note-3) former Republican Louisiana State Representative, and a candidate in the Republican presidential primaries in 1992 and in the general election for President in 1988.

- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Duke&oldid=348884598

So yeah, how very "libertarian" of mr Rothbard.

[IcarusAngel]

"Libertarianism is logically consistent with almost any attitude toward culture, society, religion, or moral principle. In strict logic, libertarian political doctrine can be severed from all other considerations; logically one can be – and indeed most libertarians in fact are: hedonists, libertines, immoralists, militant enemies of religion in general and Christianity in particular – and still be consistent adherents of libertarian politics. In fact, in strict logic, one can be a consistent devotee of property rights politically and be a moocher, a scamster, and a petty crook and racketeer in practice, as all too many libertarians turn out to be. Strictly logically, one can do these things, but psychologically, sociologically, and in practice, it simply doesn't work that way." --Murray Rothbard

lol? Wtf...

"Furthermore, I, along with other paleos, am convinced that the Old Culture, the culture pervading America from the 1920s through the 1950s, yes the culture of the much-derided Ozzie and Harriet and the Waltons, that that culture was in tune not only with the American spirit but with natural law. And further, that the nihilistic, hedonistic, ultra-feminist, egalitarian, "alternative" culture that has been foisted upon us by left-liberalism is not only not in tune with, but deeply violates the essence of that human nature that developed not only in America before the 1960s, but throughout the Western world and Western civilization."

cp7_u0kcQRo

[IcarusAngel]

DKzMbz0KLTE

:laugh:

Family Guy = "left liberal" culture that mocks the waltons (which was produced after the conservative "golden era" of television)


Rothbard and "race war":

http://fusionistlibertarian.blogspot.com/2008/01/rockwell-rothbard-race-war.html

[Agnapostate]

What does that have to do with marginal utility? Do you mean that that is the reason why it is not mainstream?

That would be what "marginality" means. Marginal utility is also not understood well by Internet Austrians, but it wasn't mentioned. The Austrians are marginal even among heterodox schools because they have made no substantive contribution to economics in decades.

Their crowning achievement was the socialist calculation debate, but since the socialists won the debate on so many levels (Barone had constructed a model that Mises ignored to begin with, the economic power of the USSR for decades proved that central planning was viable long after Mises declared that it could not produce rational economic activity, Lange, Taylor, and Lerner backed the superior position in their side of the exchange, advocates of decentralized planning had predicted the eventual failure of central planning before Mises ever did and presented a more detailed proposal in Albert and Hahnel's "participatory economics" program, Cockshott and Cottrell demonstrated the role that supercomputers could play in simulating advanced planning, and though they advocated central planning, this aided decentralized planning also, Burczak demonstrated that market socialism was ultimately based on sounder Hayekian principles than capitalism was because of the role of governmental planning in sustaining macroeconomic stabilization under capitalism, the pervasive existence of oligopoly present under capitalism, and the hierarchical nature of most firms as opposed to the horizontal and labor-managed nature of the socialist firm).


Such as?...Proof?

Why would you care? As a "mutualist-agorist," you fall somewhere between Carson and Long and remain a rightward breed of market socialist. Of course, since you're more likely an "anarcho"-capitalist, that would explain your interest in defense of Austrian thought. If it matters, the ABCT is not a true business cycle theory and was empirically disproved by Friedman, Hayekian epistemological principles that emphasize the fragmented and dispersed nature of distributed and tacit knowledge form a sound critique of the capitalist economy that the "vulgar libertarian" application of Austrian principles serves to defend, and the Austrian school has no coherent theory of the firm or understanding of labor economics.


I know he advocated for voting, but as i said if they vote then they vote libertarian which is the party he helped form.

His actual sentiments were more along the lines of this:


A right-wing populist program, then, must concentrate on dismantling the crucial existing areas of State and elite rule, and on liberating the average American from the most flagrant and oppressive features of that rule. In short:

l. Slash Taxes. All taxes, sales, business, property, etc., but especially the most oppressive politically and personally: the income tax. We must work toward repeal of the income tax and abolition of the IRS.

2. Slash Welfare. Get rid of underclass rule by abolishing the welfare system, or, short of abolition, severely cutting and restricting it.

3. Abolish Racial or Group Privileges. Abolish affirmative action, set aside racial quotas, etc., and point out that the root of such quotas is the entire "civil rights" structure, which tramples on the property rights of every American.

4. Take Back the Streets: Crush Criminals. And by this I mean, of course, not "white collar criminals" or "inside traders" but violent street criminals – robbers, muggers, rapists, murderers. Cops must be unleashed, and allowed to administer instant punishment, subject of course to liability when they are in error.

5. Take Back the Streets: Get Rid of the Bums. Again: unleash the cops to clear the streets of bums and vagrants. Where will they go? Who cares? Hopefully, they will disappear, that is, move from the ranks of the petted and cosseted bum class to the ranks of the productive members of society.

6. Abolish the Fed; Attack the Banksters. Money and banking are recondite issues. But the realities can be made vivid: the Fed is an organized cartel of banksters, who are creating inflation, ripping off the public, destroying the savings of the average American. The hundreds of billions of taxpayer handouts to S&L banksters will be chicken-feed compared to the coming collapse of the commercial banks.

7. America First. A key point, and not meant to be seventh in priority. The American economy is not only in recession; it is stagnating. The average family is worse off now than it was two decades ago. Come home America. Stop supporting bums abroad. Stop all foreign aid, which is aid to banksters and their bonds and their export industries. Stop gloabaloney, and let's solve our problems at home.

8. Defend Family Values. Which means, get the State out of the family, and replace State control with parental control. In the long run, this means ending public schools, and replacing them with private schools. But we must realize that voucher and even tax credit schemes are not, despite Milton Friedman, transitional demands on the path to privatized education; instead, they will make matters worse by fastening government control more totally upon the private schools. Within the sound alternative is decentralization, and back to local, community neighborhood control of the schools.

Further: We must reject once and for all the left-libertarian view that all government-operated resources must be cesspools. We must try, short of ultimate privatization, to operate government facilities in a manner most conducive to a business, or to neighborhood control. But that means: that the public schools must allow prayer, and we must abandon the absurd left-atheist interpretation of the First Amendment that "establishment of religion" means not allowing prayer in public schools, or a creche in a schoolyard or a public square at Christmas. We must return to common sense, and original intent, in constitutional interpretation.

So far: every one of these right-wing populist programs is totally consistent with a hard-core libertarian position.

What this illustrates is obvious: Rothbard was not a libertarian or an anarchist. Rather, he was a petty two-bit statist and authoritarian, advocate of neo-fascism.

[Left-Reasoning]

Their crowning achievement was the socialist calculation debate,

Not so. The Austrians crowning achievements are most certainly subjective value and marginal utility theory.


Why would you care? As a "mutualist-agorist," you fall somewhere between Carson and Long and remain a rightward breed of market socialist.

What makes mutulaism rightward in any sense? It is most certainly the most leftist system ever conceived.


Of course, since you're more likely an "anarcho"-capitalist, that would explain your interest in defense of Austrian thought.

Because only "anarcho"-capitalists are Austrians? Long is an Austrian, as is Carson to a degree.

[Agnapostate]

Not so. The Austrians crowning achievements are most certainly subjective value and marginal utility theory.

In their own eyes. But they've contributed nothing of value to the field of economics, and the socialist calculation debate was a rare exception to that.


What makes mutulaism rightward in any sense? It is most certainly the most leftist system ever conceived.

"Most leftist system ever conceived"? Being market socialist, mutualism is a rightward variant of socialist political economy in comparison to communism. "Mutualist-agorism" would further in that direction, and essentially constitutes an attempt to straddle the "gray line" that some believe exists between legitimate anarchism and "anarchist" capitalism.


Because only "anarcho"-capitalists are Austrians? Long is an Austrian, as is Carson to a degree.

That's not what I said, "comrade." Non-propertarians are generally uninterested in systematic defense of Austrian economics. While socialist political economy is certainly able to adapt elements of Austrian thought (such as Burczak's incorporation of Hayekian epistemic principles in defense of market socialism), my suspicion is that you're an "anarcho"-capitalist pretending to be more left-leaning than you actually are.

[Skooma Addict]

Hayekian epistemological principles that emphasize the fragmented and dispersed nature of distributed and tacit knowledge form a sound critique of the capitalist economy that the "vulgar libertarian" application of Austrian principles serves to defend.

If the point you are trying to make here is that small firms are necessarily more efficient than large ones, you are wrong.


In their own eyes. But they've contributed nothing of value to the field of economics, and the socialist calculation debate was a rare exception to that.

Says you.

[Agnapostate]

If the point you are trying to make here is that small firms are necessarily more efficient than large ones, you are wrong.

That's not quite right; the central point is that centralized, hierarchical structures will generally produce inferior information allocation in comparison to decentralized, horizontal structures, a reality that the substantial empirical literature that illustrates the superior nature of workers' ownership and management supports. But since you understand neither agency theory nor labor economics, I wouldn't expect you to understand the distinction between scale and flatness.


Says you.

If you can compile a short list, I'm certain that we'd all be grateful. However, you cannot compile a list. We should instead be grateful that a vibrant heterodox tradition exists to provide a welcome alternative to neoclassical stagnancy. The Austrian school is hardly a substantive contributor, however, and finds its niche among laypersons, mainly Internet propertarians that don't understand economics.

[Skooma Addict]

That's not quite right; the central point is that centralized, hierarchical structures will generally produce inferior information allocation in comparison to decentralized, horizontal structures, a reality that the substantial empirical literature that illustrates the superior nature of workers' ownership and management supports. But since you understand neither agency theory nor labor economics, I wouldn't expect you to understand the distinction between scale and flatness.They may produce inferior information allocation (generally), but that doesn't mean they are less efficient, which is what matters. You are still a fan of personal attacks I see.


If you can compile a short list, I'm certain that we'd all be grateful. However, you cannot compile a list. We should instead be grateful that a vibrant heterodox tradition exists to provide a welcome alternative to neoclassical stagnancy. The Austrian school is hardly a substantive contributor, however, and finds its niche among laypersons, mainly Internet propertarians that don't understand economics.Neoclassical econ isn't that bad. As for Austrian achievements....

1. Along with Jevons and Walrus, Menger helped carry forth the marginal revolution. Menger was also a better economist than Walrus and Jevons.

2. The Calculation argument as you mentioned

3. Bohm-Bawerk's work on interest

4. Hayek's work on market coordination.

5. Mises' development of Praxeology.

[IcarusAngel]

1. Old.

2. Calculation argument was disproven.

3. NOt sure.

4. Not sure.

5. Mises "praxeology" method is really nothing more than an opinion of philosophy and one of those opinions that define philosophers as believing in things that no normal man would believe in.

I also fail to see how Olaf can talk about economics when he can't even explain what a limit is or what the limit definiation of a derivative is.

Olaf, why does Lim x > 2 of | x -2 | not exist for a derivative.

[Skooma Addict]

1. Old.

So?


2. Calculation argument was disproven.

So you say.


5. Mises "praxeology" method is really nothing more than an opinion of philosophy and one of those opinions that define philosophers as believing in things that no normal man would believe in.


Incoherent.


I also fail to see how Olaf can talk about economics when he can't even explain what a limit is or what the limit definiation of a derivative is.

Olaf, why does Lim x > 2 of | x -2 | not exist for a derivative.

Red Herring.

[IcarusAngel]

Lol. You learn that stuff in 12th grade. 11th grade maybe. You could plug it into a calculator.

Economics = calculus and modeling stuff. As Milton Friedman said, the discipline of "Austrianism" = philosophy. "There is no Austrian economics - only good economics, and bad economics," to which I would append (Caplan): "Austrians do some good economics, but most good economics is not Austrian."

Austrian-economics equals a weird mix of pseudo-science, praxeology, anti-mathematical economics, philosophy of a priorism, etc.

[IcarusAngel]

Incoherent.




lol. Its not incoherent:

"5. Mises "praxeology" method is really nothing more than an opinion of philosophy and one of those opinions that define philosophers as believing in things that no normal man would believe in. "

I'm saying that this is one of those abstract things that produces nothing for society, and which gives us no insight into the human mind. These "beliefs" of philosophers (which is what Mises was, although a poor one, like Hoppe) give them the image of holding onto absurd opinions.

Sorry you can't understand English.

[Skooma Addict]

Lol. You learn that stuff in 12th grade. 11th grade maybe. You could plug it into a calculator.


And I see you have yet to learn what a logical fallacy is.



Economics = calculus and modeling stuff.

Classic. Lol.


Economics = calculus and modeling stuff. As Milton Friedman said, the discipline of "Austrianism" = philosophy. "There is no Austrian economics - only good economics, and bad economics," to which I would append (Caplan): "Austrians do some good economics, but most good economics is not Austrian."

Both Friedman and especially Caplan would agree far more with me than they would with you. In fact, Caplan claims there is far less of a difference between AE and mainstream econ than most Austrians suggest.


I'm saying that this is one of those abstract things that produces nothing for society, and which gives us no insight into the human mind. These "beliefs" of philosophers (which is what Mises was, although a poor one, like Hoppe) give them the image of holding onto absurd opinions.

I don't know what you are talking about. Mises was an economist.

[IcarusAngel]

Mises degree was in philosophy or something similar, as is Hoppe's.

Economics can only analyze the effects of trade - that's it.

Economics is the social science (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Social_sciences) that studies the production (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Production_theory_basics), distribution (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Distribution_(economics)), and consumption (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Consumption_(economics)) of goods (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Good_(economics_and_accounting)) and services (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Service_(economics)). The term economics comes from the Ancient Greek (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Ancient_Greek) οἰκονομία (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%BF%E1%BC%B0%CE%BA%CE%BF%CE%BD%CE%BF%CE%BC%CE%A F%CE%B1) (oikonomia, "management of a household, administration") from οἶκος (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%BF%E1%BC%B6%CE%BA%CE%BF%CF%82) (oikos, "house") + νόμος (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%BD%CF%8C%CE%BC%CE%BF%CF%82) (nomos, "custom" or "law"), hence "rules of the house(hold)". [1] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-etymology-0)


It is not a "hard science" and it is less accurate than statisics.

[Skooma Addict]

Mises degree was in philosophy or something similar, as is Hoppe's.

Economics can only analyze the effects of trade - that's it.

Economics is the social science (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Social_sciences) that studies the production (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Production_theory_basics), distribution (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Distribution_%28economics%29), and consumption (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Consumption_%28economics%29) of goods (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Good_%28economics_and_accounting%29) and services (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Service_%28economics%29). The term economics comes from the Ancient Greek (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Ancient_Greek) οἰκονομία (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%BF%E1%BC%B0%CE%BA%CE%BF%CE%BD%CE%BF%CE%BC%CE%A F%CE%B1) (oikonomia, "management of a household, administration") from οἶκος (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%BF%E1%BC%B6%CE%BA%CE%BF%CF%82) (oikos, "house") + νόμος (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%BD%CF%8C%CE%BC%CE%BF%CF%82) (nomos, "custom" or "law"), hence "rules of the house(hold)". [1] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-etymology-0)


It is not a "hard science" and it is less accurate than statisics.

Economics can do more than analyze the effects of trade. It can help explain why there is trade in the first place for example.

Staying on topic is difficult for you it seems.

[Left-Reasoning]

In their own eyes. But they've contributed nothing of value to the field of economics, and the socialist calculation debate was a rare exception to that.

Subjective Value Theory and Marginal Utility is nothing of value? What about Bohm-Bawerk's work on capital structure?


"Most leftist system ever conceived"? Being market socialist, mutualism is a rightward variant of socialist political economy in comparison to communism."

How is mutualism more rightist than Communism? If anything, mutualism is more leftist.


Non-propertarians are generally uninterested in systematic defense of Austrian economics.

This is a common mistake, yes.

[Left-Reasoning]

Economics can do more than analyze the effects of trade. It can help explain why there is trade in the first place for example.

Staying on topic is difficult for you it seems.

To expand further, the "economics" of which the Austrians speak of is the theory of how prices are formed in a market. Mises dubbed it "catallactics".

[LeftSideDown]

The Austrians are marginal even among heterodox schools because they have made no substantive contribution to economics in decades.

When was the last time the heliocentrists contributed anything to the study of our solar system... seriously, they must be wrong.

[Agnapostate]

They may produce inferior information allocation (generally), but that doesn't mean they are less efficient, which is what matters.

Yes, they are, as information allocation is only one facet of the general problems of centralized hierarchy (though Hayek seemed to consider it a rather important one), along with incentive underprovision related to agency costs and problems. This is the basis for the empirical literature that illustrates the superior efficiency of the worker-owned enterprise to the orthodox capitalist firm and the still greater efficiency of the labor cooperative over the worker-owned enterprise. For example, consult Doucouliagos's Worker Participation and Productivity in Labor-Managed and Participatory Capitalist Firms: A Meta-Analysis (http://www.jstor.org/pss/2524912)


Using meta-analytic techniques, the author synthesizes the results of 43 published studies to investigate the effects on productivity of various forms of worker participation: worker participation in decision making; mandated codetermination; profit sharing; worker ownership (employee stock ownership or individual worker ownership of the firm's assets); and collective ownership of assets (workers' collective ownership of reserves over which they have no individual claim). He finds that codetermination laws are negatively associated with productivity, but profit sharing, worker ownership, and worker participation in decision making are all positively associated with productivity. All the observed correlations are stronger among labor-managed firms (firms owned and controlled by workers) than among participatory capitalist firms (firms adopting one or more participation schemes involving employees, such as ESOPs or quality circles).

Since you're neither a libertarian nor a fellow with an interest in economic efficiency, this might confound you somewhat.


1. Along with Jevons and Walrus, Menger helped carry forth the marginal revolution. Menger was also a better economist than Walrus and Jevons.

No contribution by Menger specifically to modern economics. The word modern might also imply a certain novelty that the marginal revolution lacks, incidentally. On a side note, Walras was a human and not a tusked marine mammal. Have you done any research that you haven't gotten from mises.org and the Wikipedia article on the topic?


2. The Calculation argument as you mentioned

A socialist victory. And yes, "so I say." So I've said with arguments in support, and so you've not rebutted.


3. Bohm-Bawerk's work on interest

No contribution to modern economics.


4. Hayek's work on market coordination.

Marginal contribution to modern economics, though Hayek is certainly the most important Austrian figure. But his work is detached from the most fundamental Misesian principles; he floated in the gray area between Austrian and neoclassical economic theory.


5. Mises' development of Praxeology.

No contribution to modern economics. The usage of econometric analysis permits us to consider the topic among the more empirical disciplines of the social sciences. The most empirical discipline of the social sciences, perhaps.


Subjective Value Theory and Marginal Utility is nothing of value? What about Bohm-Bawerk's work on capital structure?

The sentence "Subjective Value Theory and Marginal Utility is nothing of value?" is somewhat disingenuous (especially in the case of marginal utility). As I said, there's no contribution to modern economics in specifically Austrian work on those topics. The Austrian school's only major contribution to economics has come through the socialist calculation debate, and even that contribution has been incorporated into socialist political economy.


How is mutualism more rightist than Communism? If anything, mutualism is more leftist.

Also disingenuous. I mentioned (small 'c') communism, a socio-economic theory that involves the abolition of money, markets, and the state, and is to the left of mutualism and other forms of market socialism.


This is a common mistake, yes.

We'll have to wait until the Austrian school has a coherent theory of the firm before I agree.


When was the last time the heliocentrists contributed anything to the study of our solar system... seriously, they must be wrong.

Heliocentric theory is at the heart of analysis of the solar system (that would be why it's called the solar system). If you can demonstrate that the Austrian approach is at the heart of modern economics, please do so.

[Wolf Larson]

I think it is important to point out that you can be an adherent to the Austrian School of Economics and vehemently oppose capitalism.
I knew it. As I told you on my revleft homepage you're nothing but a capitalist and Konkin was simply taking the subjective insincere rhetorical baton Rothbard handed him in an attempt to con white working class IDIOTS into supporting capitalism. You support property, wage slavery, rent, interest and usury. You're a god damned capitalist and I can unravel all of your insincere rhetoric. You people have twisted the works of Stirner, Tucker and Spooner [individualist anarchists] to the point of absurdity. We have a name for what you do, it's called quackery. I'd go to a dentist for heart surgery before I took "anarcho" capitalism/agorism seriously. The only thing I do think is serious is the fact you people are confusing a great number of people [besides yourselves] as to the ACTUAL meaning of anarchism. I spend at least an hour a week exposing the fraud that is "anarcho" capitalism/agorism. Fraud is fraud is quackery is reactionary counterrevolutionary tripe. This means you. PS- you can thank Thor's Miter Saw on youtube for my disdain.

[Agnapostate]

He isn't a capitalist. No actual capitalist would support an attempt to establish "anarchist" capitalism as it could not be implemented and the monstrosity that was created would inevitably collapse.

Some of you "an"-caps really need to work on a consistent definition of "capitalism," incidentally. I think most of your comrades refer to the "laissez-faire theoretical abstraction unobserved in actual history" variant. That's not what you're claiming to oppose, I'd hope. ;)

[Skooma Addict]

Yes, they are, as information allocation is only one facet of the general problems of centralized hierarchy (though Hayek seemed to consider it a rather important one), along with incentive underprovision related to agency costs and problems. This is the basis for the empirical literature that illustrates the superior efficiency of the worker-owned enterprise to the orthodox capitalist firm and the still greater efficiency of the labor cooperative over the worker-owned enterprise. For example, consult Doucouliagos's Worker Participation and Productivity in Labor-Managed and Participatory Capitalist Firms: A Meta-Analysis (http://www.jstor.org/pss/2524912)Why do I feel like we had this discussion before? Oh yea, now I remember. I will list some advantages that large firms have over small ones if you don't ignore them this time. The correct view is that which type of firm is more efficient depends on the industry and market conditions. You cannot know exactly how prevalent each type of firm will be in a free market a priori.

On a side note, I just want to be clear about something. If you were correct (you're not) that would not in any way somehow stop me from supporting free markets.



Since you're neither a libertarian nor a fellow with an interest in economic efficiency, this might confound you somewhat.Is that supposed to convince me? One paragraph from 1 source when I can list many more (and so you don't have a fit, from non-Austrians) which explain advantages a large firm enjoys over a small one?

I will read that book though if they have it in my college library as it looks interesting.


No contribution by Menger specifically to modern economics. The word modern might also imply a certain novelty that the marginal revolution lacks, incidentally. On a side note, Walras was a human and not a tusked marine mammal. Have you done any research that you haven't gotten from mises.org and the Wikipedia article on the topic? I must have accidentally changed the name when I was doing a spell check. Anyways, yes I have done research that didn't include wiki or Mises.org.



He isn't a capitalist. No actual capitalist would support an attempt to establish "anarchist" capitalism as it could not be implemented and the monstrosity that was created would inevitably collapse. Do you think there would still be the enforcement of private property and private ownership over the means of production?


The only thing I do think is serious is the fact you people are confusing a great number of people [besides yourselves] as to the ACTUAL meaning of anarchism. I spend at least an hour a week exposing the fraud that is "anarcho" capitalism/agorism. Fraud is fraud is quackery is reactionary counterrevolutionary tripe. This means you. PS- you can thank Thor's Miter Saw on youtube for my disdain.Most leftist anarchists don't seem to realize that there have been anarchists for thousands of years.

[Zanthorus]

Most leftist anarchists don't seem to realize that there have been anarchists for thousands of years.

None of whom would have referred to themselves as anarchists.

We've had this conversation before I could swear.

Anyway social anarchism is the form that anarchism took historically and what helped it to become a worldwide (http://www.zabalaza.net/pdfs/varpams/non_west_anoks.pdf) movement of oppressed people against capitalism and the state.

[Skooma Addict]

None of whom would have referred to themselves as anarchists.

We've had this conversation before I could swear.

Anyway social anarchism is the form that anarchism took historically and what helped it to become a worldwide (http://www.zabalaza.net/pdfs/varpams/non_west_anoks.pdf) movement of oppressed people against capitalism and the state.

Yes we did have this conversation. I explained how just because Proudhon was the first person to call himself an anarchist, that does not mean he was the first anarchist. By the way, since you think Proudhon was the first anarchist, do you think it was fair for an anarchist in the 1880s to tell Kropotkin that he can't be an anarchist and a communist since anarchists in the past weren't?

[Zanthorus]

Yes we did have this conversation. I explained how just because Proudhon was the first person to call himself an anarchist, that does not mean he was the first anarchist. By the way, since you think Proudhon was the first anarchist, do you think it was fair for an anarchist in the 1880s to tell Kropotkin that he can't be an anarchist and a communist since anarchists in the past weren't?

There are anarcho-communists going back to 1852 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joseph_D%C3%A9jacque&oldid=329814692) at least.

[Skooma Addict]

There are anarcho-communists going back to 1852 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joseph_D%C3%A9jacque&oldid=329814692) at least.

You do think Proudhon was the first anarchist, correct?

[Agnapostate]

Why do I feel like we had this discussion before? Oh yea, now I remember. I will list some advantages that large firms have over small ones if you don't ignore them this time. The correct view is that which type of firm is more efficient depends on the industry and market conditions. You cannot know exactly how prevalent each type of firm will be in a free market a priori.

I ought to have expected you not to abandon your ignorance quickly, but my patience for it has diminished. So, as I'll repeat one final time, the integral question in the case of optimal firm structure is not scale (though it's not completely irrelevant), but flatness. Firms organized horizontally and democratically are generally more efficient and productive than those characterized by centralized hierarchy.


On a side note, I just want to be clear about something. If you were correct (you're not) that would not in any way somehow stop me from supporting free markets.

You don't support free markets. You support capitalism.


Is that supposed to convince me? One paragraph from 1 source when I can list many more (and so you don't have a fit, from non-Austrians) which explain advantages a large firm enjoys over a small one?

One source? The "one paragraph" was the abstract of a meta analysis, as the term "meta-analysis" in the name might indicate. And there's a substantial empirical literature that supports the premise that workers' ownership and management is a superior method of firm organization, as we'd expect. For example, we might consider Cooperatives, Worker-Owned Enterprises, Productivity and the International Labor Organization (http://eid.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/27/4/686)


A survey of empirical research on productivity in worker-owned enterprises and cooperatives finds a substantial literature that largely supports the proposition that worker-owned enterprises equal or exceed the productivity of conventional enterprises when employee involvement is combined with ownership. The weight of a sparser literature on cooperatives tends toward the same pattern. In addition, employee-owned firms create local employment, anchor jobs in their communities and enrich local social capital.

As I said before to our other "comrade," study up, phony anarchist.


I will read that book though if they have it in my college library as it looks interesting.

What book?


I must have accidentally changed the name when I was doing a spell check. Anyways, yes I have done research that didn't include wiki or Mises.org.

In that case, why not list several ways in which the Marginal Revolution would have been adversely impacted and what effects this would have on modern economics had Menger not been involved? Remember to cite appropriate arguments and evidence instead of merely regurgitating talking points and assertions.


Do you think there would still be the enforcement of private property and private ownership over the means of production?

There could be rainbow-colored pixies for all it mattered. "Anarchist" capitalism cannot exist, as capitalism is incompatible with statelessness.


Most leftist anarchists don't seem to realize that there have been anarchists for thousands of years.

"Leftist anarchists" is a redundant term; all forms of anarchism are necessarily leftist. While I find Murray Rothbard's comments on the secretly anarchist nature of Chinese feudalists enthralling, anarchism as a defined and coherent political philosophy has only existed for 170 years, though proto-anarchist libertarians existed earlier.

[Skooma Addict]

I ought to have expected you not to abandon your ignorance quickly, but my patience for it has diminished. So, as I'll repeat one final time, the integral question in the case of optimal firm structure is not scale (though it's not completely irrelevant), but flatness. Firms organized horizontally and democratically are generally more efficient and productive than those characterized by centralized hierarchy.So you think there are information allocation problems in small hierarchical firms of say, 5 people? As for worker run firms, they have disadvantages of their own. Will worker run firms be able to issue stock to finance their business activities? What about the fact that an entrepreneur will be more forward looking since he owns the business for life compared to a worker who may only be working at a worker run firm part time. Again, it just depends on the industry and the specific situation. You do not know what will be best a priori.

You should also have a good explanation for why worker run firms are not more common.


You don't support free markets. You support capitalism. That depends on how you define free markets and how you define capitalism. If the state is abolished, I don't expect people to suddenly stop supporting private property and the private ownership over the means of production.


One source? The "one paragraph" was the abstract of a meta analysis, as the term "meta-analysis" in the name might indicate. And there's a substantial empirical literature that supports the premise that workers' ownership and management is a superior method of firm organization, as we'd expect. For example, we might consider Cooperatives, Worker-Owned Enterprises, Productivity and the International Labor Organization (http://eid.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/27/4/686)You can just make the arguments yourself. I am not going to read pdfs.



As I said before to our other "comrade," study up, phony anarchist. What point could you possibly want me to take from the passage you quoted? Do you think I didn't know that there are people in the world who attempt to give evidence for the superiority of worker run firms? No concrete evidence was given.


In that case, why not list several ways in which the Marginal Revolution would have been adversely impacted and what effects this would have on modern economics had Menger not been involved? Remember to cite appropriate arguments and evidence instead of merely regurgitating talking points and assertions.Menger did not use mathematics where it was not applicable as both Walras and Jevons did.



There could be rainbow-colored pixies for all it mattered. "Anarchist" capitalism cannot exist, as capitalism is incompatible with statelessness.Talk about regurgitated talking points....All you did is repeat yourself. Try again.


"Leftist anarchists" is a redundant term; all forms of anarchism are necessarily leftist. While I find Murray Rothbard's comments on the secretly anarchist nature of Chinese feudalists enthralling, anarchism as a defined and coherent political philosophy has only existed for 170 years, though proto-anarchist libertarians existed earlier.You do know that plenty of people besides Rothbard realized that there have been anarchists for thousands of years, right? If you oppose the state, then you are an anarchist. What kind of property you prefer does not matter. If a group of people voluntarily form a community which enforces private property, how isn't that anarchist?

Edit: Do you think anarchp-capitalist communities and anarcho-communist communities should be allowed to exist side by side?

[Agnapostate]

So you think there are information allocation problems in small hierarchical firms of say, 5 people?

I would hope not. But if you're ignorant and naive enough to believe that minuscule firms represent the dominant form of organization in the modern economy, there's no point in continuing.


As for worker run firms, they have disadvantages of their own. Will worker run firms be able to issue stock to finance their business activities? What about the fact that an entrepreneur will be more forward looking since he owns the business for life compared to a worker who may only be working at a worker run firm part time.

As its name might imply, workers' ownership usually entails ownership by workers, which is somewhat at odds with ownership by external shareholders, which is a source of principal-agent problems due to the diverging interests of owners, managers, and workers. While your naive little conception of the virtuous and forward thinking "entrepreneur" (which the majority of capitalists are not), as opposed to the dimwitted sluggard prole is amusing "and Reisman-esque," the empirical research referred to flatly contradicts your premise, now that we're done beating around the bush.


Again, it just depends on the industry and the specific situation. You do not know what will be best a priori.

Your droning repetition of unsupported assertions without even the pretense of argument is growing rather tiresome. Why not at least pretend to know what you're talking about?


You should also have a good explanation for why worker run firms are not more common.

Silly little Oaf. If you actually knew anything about economics, you'd be familiar with a small phenomenon we perverse reds refer to as "market power," with a tendency towards concentration in the capitalist economy typically culminating in monopoly or oligopoly (with oligopolistic structure being one of the conditions that renders capitalism a centrally planned economy). That you mumble that markets would be forced to introduce something if it was more efficient, since anyone could simply gain a competitive edge by using whatever that might be (more efficient organizational methods, in this case), is simply more evidence of your economic utopianism.

Libertarians understand the unjust, restrictive nature of such conditions of market concentration. For example, the point is well illustrated in a letter of libertarian social theorist John Stuart Mill (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stuart_Mill) that attacked established sellers that created an unfair barrier to firm entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barriers_to_entry) through underselling (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/underselling) (informative links for your convenience and education):


Sir, I beg to enclose a subscription of [10 pounds] to aid, as far as such a sum can do it, in the struggle which the Co-operative Plate-Lock Makers of Wolverhampton are maintaining against unfair competition on the part of the masters in the trade. Against fair competition I have no desire to shield them. Co-operative production carried on by persons whose hearts are in the cause, and who are capable of the energy and self-denial always necessary in its early stages, ought to be able to hold its ground against private establishments and persons who have not those qualities had better not attempt it.

But to carry on business at a loss in order to ruin competitors is not fair competition. In such a contest, if prolonged, the competitors who have the smallest means, though they may have every other element of success, must necessarily be crushed through no fault of their own. Having the strongest sympathy with your vigorous attempt to make head against what in such a case may justly be called the tyranny of capital, I beg you to send me a dozen copies of your printed appeal, to assist me in making the case known to such persons as it may interest in your favor.

That illustrates market socialist economic theorist Jaroslav Vanek's point that "[t]he capitalist economy is not a true market economy because in western capitalism, as in Soviet state capitalism, there is a tendency towards monopoly. Economic democracy tends toward a competitive market." The consolidation of the private ownership of the means of production by the capital class prevents fair market competition and maximization of efficiency.


That depends on how you define free markets and how you define capitalism.

Capitalism is the prevailing socioeconomic system of the world, and is characterized by private ownership of the means of production, market exchange as the primary means of resource allocation, the division of ownership, management, and work in the labor market that characterizes modern wage labor, and a growth imperative. While the Austro-propertarian is inclined to assign the term "corporatism" to the modern economy and insist that capitalism is actually the laissez-faire free market (which evidently only existed until before 1913, though when the substantial history of state intervention before that is pointed out, they typically switch to claiming that it only existed in medieval Iceland), this is a no true Scotsman fallacy intended to perpetually blame the failings of capitalism on something else.


If the state is abolished, I don't expect people to suddenly stop supporting private property and the private ownership over the means of production.

Private property comes at the expense of property rights for the majority of the population; the majority of people are implicitly discontent with substantial property and wealth concentration, even if not explicit opponents. The private ownership of the means of production that enables theft of surplus value from the working class is the most significant encroachment upon property rights in the capitalist economy. But elimination of the state is not consistent with private ownership of the means of production, as that arrangement necessitates the role of centralized government for macroeconomic stabilization purposes.


You can just make the arguments yourself. I am not going to read pdfs.

No one cares. That the empirical literature supports my position is still a reality.


What point could you possibly want me to take from the passage you quoted? Do you think I didn't know that there are people in the world who attempt to give evidence for the superiority of worker run firms? No concrete evidence was given.

Kindly cite the specific errors in the empirical research referred to that causes you to insist that it is not "concrete evidence." Since the only thing that came to your mind was that it conflicted with your preconceived ideological notions, you might encounter some trouble at this stage.


Menger did not use mathematics where it was not applicable as both Walras and Jevons did.

You seem to have reading comprehension issues. Let's try again: "[W]hy not list several ways in which the Marginal Revolution would have been adversely impacted and what effects this would have on modern economics had Menger not been involved? Remember to cite appropriate arguments and evidence instead of merely regurgitating talking points and assertions."


Talk about regurgitated talking points....All you did is repeat yourself. Try again.

This is called a non-argument. Study it.


You do know that plenty of people besides Rothbard realized that there have been anarchists for thousands of years, right?

Other than his poorly informed and sycophantic acolytes? No, I don't believe such persons exist.


If you oppose the state, then you are an anarchist. What kind of property you prefer does not matter.

Opposition to capitalism and other arrangements characterized by hierarchical social structures is a necessary aspect of anarchism. It's simply a matter of straightforward etymological conflict between anarchism and the hierarchies of the capitalist labor market. The term "anarchy" literally means "no ruler/authority" or "without rulers/authority" (derived from the Greek ἀν-ἀρχός), which effectively means that anarchism is an ideology of opposition to hierarchical governance, as "hierarchy" is derived from the Greek term ἱεραρχία.

Now, ἀρχός and αρχία are parallel terms, so by its very nature, any ideology that has as its end the preservation of archy (with hierarchy being the most fundamental archy), as a normal condition is opposed to anarchism. That propertarians support the existence of hierarchy and thus are opposed to anarchism is driven home in this attempt (http://mises.org/story/3304) to "rebut" Chomsky's criticism of the hierarchical nature of the capitalist labor market on mises.org, in which the author emphasizes that "there is nothing inherently wrong with private business entities with a hierarchical management structure." A debatable sentiment, if he wants to advance it, but one literally in conflict with the etymological nature of the term "anarchy."


If a group of people voluntarily form a community which enforces private property, how isn't that anarchist?

The isolated actions of individual economic agents and minuscule aggregations of them have no effect whatsoever on the prevailing social structure of the day. Since it's reasonable to believe that legitimate voluntary entry into hierarchical social arrangements is not and will never be a general behavioral trend, it would be absurd to expect "anarchism" to be characterized by "voluntary formations of communities" that "enforce private property." Most people go vanilla instead of playing the dom/sub game too.


Edit: Do you think anarchp-capitalist communities and anarcho-communist communities should be allowed to exist side by side?

I'd hope, that were changes made so that day-to-day life was more libertarian, you would be able to join a fundamentalist Mormon compound and live off the land if you were able to. I personally couldn't care less about the sort of deviant cult nonsense you wished to engage in. But transition to a socialist economy necessitates that the means of production be collectivized and public property rights be protected. While I wish you luck in constructing your utopia, I (and the other socialists on this board) wouldn't see it done through encroachment upon fundamental property rights. That's why I'd be dubious of the ability of capitalism to develop in the socialist economy except through aggression; accumulation of sufficient productive resources and consolidation by private dictatorial monopolies is not possible.

[Zanthorus]

You do think Proudhon was the first anarchist, correct?

He was the first person to express anarchist ideas. Wether or not he was consistent enough to warrant being called an anarchist is up for debate.

[Skooma Addict]

I would hope not. But if you're ignorant and naive enough to believe that minuscule firms represent the dominant form of organization in the modern economy, there's no point in continuing. I never said that. But it is not like they are that rare. So now I am wondering why you mentioned the information allocation problem (one could argue that it applies to large firms, whether they be hierarchical or worker run) and then claim that the size of a firm does not matter compared to its structure, when it is clear that the size of the firm does matter as small hierarchical firms do not suffer from any such problem. Now, if you want to compare large hierarchical firms with small worker run firms, then I can point to quite a few advantages that the large hierarchical firm enjoys merely by the fact that it is large.

Are there any modern examples of large worker run firms? I would be interested to look into them.

But anyways, in the long run, this is essentially a non-issue for me. I don't care at all what kind of firm becomes dominant in a free market. The most efficient ones will win out. But I am not going to claim to know beforehand what the market would look like.



As its name might imply, workers' ownership usually entails ownership by workers, which is somewhat at odds with ownership by external shareholders, which is a source of principal-agent problems due to the diverging interests of owners, managers, and workers. While your naive little conception of the virtuous and forward thinking "entrepreneur" (which the majority of capitalists are not), as opposed to the dimwitted sluggard prole is amusing "and Reisman-esque," the empirical research referred to flatly contradicts your premise, now that we're done beating around the bush.And the issuing of stock is sometimes the best way to finance an organization. I don't see the problem with the diverging interests of owners, managers, and workers. It seems pretty clear to me that an entrepreneur will be more forward thinking as he owns the organization for life as compared to a worker who may only be there part time. I am unaware of any empirical research saying otherwise.


Your droning repetition of unsupported assertions without even the pretense of argument is growing rather tiresome. Why not at least pretend to know what you're talking about?Pretend to know what the market would look like? why? I don't claim to know. I just don't think you could know either.



Silly little Oaf. If you actually knew anything about economics, you'd be familiar with a small phenomenon we perverse reds refer to as "market power," with a tendency towards concentration in the capitalist economy typically culminating in monopoly or oligopoly (with oligopolistic structure being one of the conditions that renders capitalism a centrally planned economy). That you mumble that markets would be forced to introduce something if it was more efficient, since anyone could simply gain a competitive edge by using whatever that might be (more efficient organizational methods, in this case), is simply more evidence of your economic utopianism.Oh yes, "market power." So whenever a hierarchical firm outperforms a worker run firm it is a result of market power, and whenever a worker run firm performs better than a hierarchical firm it is evidence in favor of the claim that a worker run firm is necessarily more efficient than a hierarchical firm, right?


Capitalism is the prevailing socioeconomic system of the world, and is characterized by private ownership of the means of production, market exchange as the primary means of resource allocation, the division of ownership, management, and work in the labor market that characterizes modern wage labor, and a growth imperative. While the Austro-propertarian is inclined to assign the term "corporatism" to the modern economy and insist that capitalism is actually the laissez-faire free market (which evidently only existed until before 1913, though when the substantial history of state intervention before that is pointed out, they typically switch to claiming that it only existed in medieval Iceland), this is a no true Scotsman fallacy intended to perpetually blame the failings of capitalism on something else. Then your claim that I support capitalism is incorrect, as I do not support the prevailing socioeconomic system. I honestly don't care if you want to call the prevailing system capitalism as long as you understand that I don't support it.


Private property comes at the expense of property rights for the majority of the population; the majority of people are implicitly discontent with substantial property and wealth concentration, even if not explicit opponents. The private ownership of the means of production that enables theft of surplus value from the working class is the most significant encroachment upon property rights in the capitalist economy. But elimination of the state is not consistent with private ownership of the means of production, as that arrangement necessitates the role of centralized government for macroeconomic stabilization purposes.Yes, many people are discontent by wealth concentration. That does not mean they want to abolish private property. Elimination of the state is in no way inconsistent with the private ownership of the means of production.

1.) The state is abolished.
2.) A group of people form a voluntary community which enforces private property and contracts through private arbitration agencies.
3.) No new state emerges.


No one cares. That the empirical literature supports my position is still a reality.

If you want to post it, be my guest. Just don't post something which merely claims that the empirical research supports your position.


Kindly cite the specific errors in the empirical research referred to that causes you to insist that it is not "concrete evidence." Since the only thing that came to your mind was that it conflicted with your preconceived ideological notions, you might encounter some trouble at this stage.You didn't post any actual empirical research.

"A survey of empirical research on productivity in worker-owned enterprises and cooperatives finds a substantial literature that largely supports the proposition that worker-owned enterprises equal or exceed the productivity of conventional enterprises when employee involvement is combined with ownership. The weight of a sparser literature on cooperatives tends toward the same pattern. In addition, employee-owned firms create local employment, anchor jobs in their communities and enrich local social capital."

All you essentially did was repeat yourself. You said that the empirical research supported your position, and you posted this to support your claim. I want the actual research. I am not going to go looking for it. I assume you read it so it shouldn't be a hassle for you to post it.



You seem to have reading comprehension issues. Let's try again: "[W]hy not list several ways in which the Marginal Revolution would have been adversely impacted and what effects this would have on modern economics had Menger not been involved? Remember to cite appropriate arguments and evidence instead of merely regurgitating talking points and assertions."I am not sure how I have reading comprehension issues as I never claimed to have read anything (Austrian or otherwise) specifically about why the Marginal revolution would have been negatively effected had Menger not been involved. Now, as far as The history of the marginal revolution and the actual concept of Marginal value is concerned, yes, I have read other sources.


This is called a non-argument. Study it. Pointing out that you merely repeated yourself is a non argument....got it.


Other than his poorly informed and sycophantic acolytes? No, I don't believe such persons exist. I typed "anarchist timeline" into google and here is the first link.

http://www.zpub.com/notes/aan-hist.html

Something tells me that the creator of the timeline isn't a follower of Rothbard...


Opposition to capitalism and other arrangements characterized by hierarchical social structures is a necessary aspect of anarchism. It's simply a matter of straightforward etymological conflict between anarchism and the hierarchies of the capitalist labor market. The term "anarchy" literally means "no ruler/authority" or "without rulers/authority" (derived from the Greek ἀν-ἀρχός), which effectively means that anarchism is an ideology of opposition to hierarchical governance, as "hierarchy" is derived from the Greek term ἱεραρχία. The word philosophy literally means love of wisdom, therefore, a philosopher is a person who loves wisdom. By the way, I assume you don't believe the anarchists in Spain were anarchists? As they clearly operated under a hierarchy and were certainly pro-authority.

Also, any anarcho-syndicalist or anarcho-communist who will stop an-caps from forming their own voluntary communities is pro-authority and therefore is not an anarchist, right?


The isolated actions of individual economic agents and minuscule aggregations of them have no effect whatsoever on the prevailing social structure of the day. Since it's reasonable to believe that legitimate voluntary entry into hierarchical social arrangements is not and will never be a general behavioral trend, it would be absurd to expect "anarchism" to be characterized by "voluntary formations of communities" that "enforce private property." Most people go vanilla instead of playing the dom/sub game too. You didn't answer my question.

If a group of people voluntarily form a community which enforces private property, how isn't that anarchist?


I'd hope, that were changes made so that day-to-day life was more libertarian, you would be able to join a fundamentalist Mormon compound and live off the land if you were able to. I personally couldn't care less about the sort of deviant cult nonsense you wished to engage in. But transition to a socialist economy necessitates that the means of production be collectivized and public property rights be protected. While I wish you luck in constructing your utopia, I (and the other socialists on this board) wouldn't see it done through encroachment upon fundamental property rights. That's why I'd be dubious of the ability of capitalism to develop in the socialist economy except through aggression; accumulation of sufficient productive resources and consolidation by private dictatorial monopolies is not possible.So what exactly are the differences between you and me besides what we think anarchy would look like and what kind of community we would prefer to live in? Neither of the two differences I mentioned are legitimate grounds for claiming the person you disagree with is not an anarchist.

I also don't think property has to be collectivized beforehand. If the state were to disappear, each community should then decide for itself what is best. Again, this difference does not mean that you are correct in saying I am not an anarchist.

[LeftSideDown]

Heliocentric theory is at the heart of analysis of the solar system (that would be why it's called the solar system). If you can demonstrate that the Austrian approach is at the heart of modern economics, please do so.

I was merely replying to the fact that, according to you, branch of scientific thought needs to continuously be updating itself to be true. Obviously we don't see people constantly stating that the sun is not actually the center of the universe, but is is off by 0.0000000165% or something. Its silly. Anyway, I'm not here... I'm not here.

[Klaatu]

Nice comic, but you should also leave your own comments. The forum is not just a place to drop images.

Naw, a picture is worth a thousand words, as they say.

I would also submit that Libertarians are in bed with organized crime.

[MMIKEYJ]

Sorry, I was hoping it would start a discussion about how the libertarians always seem to play into the hands of the neocons.
Um, I dont know what libertarians youre talking about, but it aint me or any I know.

[Nolan]

Um, I dont know what libertarians youre talking about, but it aint me or any I know.

I'm talking about the constitutionalist conservatives who are usually called libertarians, not the misean minarchist rejects who must be only 1/20 of all libertarians in real life.

[LeftSideDown]

I'm talking about the constitutionalist conservatives who are usually called libertarians, not the misean minarchist rejects who must be only 1/20 of all libertarians in real life.

"Rejects"? Rejects from what?

[Nolan]

"Rejects"? Rejects from what?

Um, I'm sure you're aware mainstream bourgeois economics doesn't exactly like the Austrian School. Most of these teabagger and constitution types don't know anything about the Austrian School, they just base their politics on shit they heard Reagan, Sarah Palin, or Ron Paul say and their only goal is "smaller government." They should actually be called "corporatarians," since that's who they see as the ultimate good in the world.

[LeftSideDown]

Um, I'm sure you're aware mainstream bourgeois economics doesn't exactly like the Austrian School. Most of these teabagger and constitution types don't know anything about the Austrian School, they just base their politics on shit they heard Reagan, Sarah Palin, or Ron Paul say and their only goal is "smaller government." They should actually be called "corporatarians," since that's who they see as the ultimate good in the world.

Galileo was a "reject" from the Church for heliocentrism. I guess he was wrong though, since he was rejected by the mainstream :rolleyes:

[Nolan]

Galileo was a "reject" from the Church for heliocentrism. I guess he was wrong though, since he was rejected by the mainstream :rolleyes:

Obviously that's not what I meant. Marxism isn't mainstream either. We're both rejects. :lol:

[IcarusAngel]

Marxism was once more predominant though. Are there any examples you can cite of a theory, such as LTV, being popular in a scientific community, and then being "discredited," and then coming back?

Look at behaviorism. It was discredited. It has not come back in cognitive sciences, although there are a few people on Revleft who are behaviorists.

I'm sure there should be some but I can't think of any (and yes I realize economics is not a science).

[LeftSideDown]

Obviously that's not what I meant. Marxism isn't mainstream either. We're both rejects. :lol:

Oh, I thought you were implying something negative. My mistake.