The Austrians and scientific racialism - A candid statement. [Archive]

Dermezel

10th August 2010, 15:30

It is and always has been a god damn joke.

See Stephen Jay Gould's The Mismeasure of man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mismeasure_of_Man) and

Edwin Blacks' War Against the Weak (http://www.waragainsttheweak.com/).

It is just pseudoscience. The first IQ tests were made by racists, on an arbitrary number called the "G-factor". The measurements of which changed over time, from how many marbles can fit in a skull, to some strange computation of culturally biased questions. In fact the first IQ test questions included things like "What kind of product does X baseball star advertise?"

These were asked by Customs when Eastern European immigrants, many of which could not even speak English arrived. Since many had "low IQs" they were deemed to be dangerous to our "germplasm" and hence immigration quotas were established.

Note "germplasm" was all the rage among American eugenicists (who were the most numerous, well-funded and influential eugenicists until Nazi Germany) at the time because they didn't know about DNA. (Because they were linked to and supported by capitalists they were able to get multiple laws passed which sterelized tens of thousands of Americans up until the 1980s. This was done by pure money- as popular opinion, the scientific establishment and legal precedence all opposed this pseudoscientific BS. )

The concept of this were largely rejected by psychologists, sociologists and biologists at the time. That is why you see most actual, practicing, field research scientists talking about the evolution of say the honey bee, or basic perception/conditioning or how you can predict homosexuality of a child by observing him/her for 5 minutes at age 5 with 75% accuracy. And no racial studies save among the racists themselves. The idea was complete bunk and rejected by the vast majority of scientists.

However this didn't stop capitalists who, for obvious reasons, favored the ideology. Rockefeller, Morgan, Carnagie, Kellogs, all backed it.

And you ended up with large institutions giving ridiculous speeches like "The need to protect the civilized germplasm!" I kid you not stuff like that was actual titles. Or "Promoting the better germplasm!"

When the Nazis came along the tide shifted, geographically, but the "science" became even more ridiculous. The Nazis, you see, were completely ignorant of actual science and believed inheritance was literally determined by blood.

Millions of gallons of blood were shipped via trains from death camps in Nazi Germany to be analyzed by hundreds of scientists over thousands of hours to determine the "secrets of Aryanism".

The Nazis were so stupid they even encouraged "inbreeding" to create the master race. And They were also obsessed, for some reason, with eyes.

Joseph Mengele, when he wasn't collecting blood or torturing twins, collected eye balls. He had an entire room where the walls, the roof, the floor was covered with eye balls pinned down like a butterfly collection. One maid who walked into the room accidentally said she thought she "walked into hell".

Oh but the idiocy doesn't end there. The Nazis were obsessed with appearing methodical and scientific with respect to racial studies. So as Gould notes they'd determine an acceptable amount of "Jewish blood" that was "acceptable". This standard was something like 1/8th, it was chosen completely at random.

But then they used hundreds of scientists and doctors and thousands of hours of labor to research every single person in Germany and occupied territories to see how well they measured against this 1/8th standard. It was complete, arbitrary madness backed by laborious method.

If these idiots had won, science would have turned into New Age philosophy. They believed in a lot of weird shit in Nazi Germany- Positive Christianity, Astrology, Blood inheritance, eyeball inheritance, phrenology, Egyptian mythology, etc.

And anyone who disagreed was silenced and outlawed- such as the "atheistic" Vienna Circle, and Relativity physics which was deemed "Jewish Physics" (never mind this Jewish physics created the A- bomb) .

To get some idea of what University "Science" in Nazi Germany would have looked like go to the New Age section of the local Barnes and Nobles.

Dermezel

10th August 2010, 15:36

Also modern day DNA polymorphism (http://news.softpedia.com/news/12-of-the-DNA-Differs-Amongst-Human-Races-and-Populations-40872.shtml) studies (the actual differences among groups, hence the term "poly" or many ) positively shows that racism is wrong. With complete certainty. Over 90% of genetically determined differences, including personality and intelligences (there are actually 9 different types of intelligence) occurs within a "race" not between. And according to DNA polymorphic studies "race" is determined by relatively long-term geographic isolations meaning there are roughly 6. (New Guinean, Northern African-Eurasian, American, Australian, Sub-Saharan African, and Indian past the Himalayas).

This has nothing to do with skin colors. In fact a black person from North Africa is the same exact "race" as a white person in Europe. And black/white from the same region are more similar then say a white european and a white Indian. And none have been linked to behavioral differences. It is all bull shit and 100% scientifically disproven at the bio-molecular level.

Oh when I bring it up the racists say there is an "unmeasurable" "spiritual difference". Of course. Religion/spiritualities are always the last sanctums of bigotry.

BTW the "argued" reason why I am a "restricted/reactionary" is because I am "racist" for promoting Jared Diamond (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_Diamond) - who is an anti-racist (which is actually a smoke screen, real reason is for defending China from capitalism. )

Also if you want to get technical, Africans have the healthiest genes because they have the most diverse gene pool (http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/world/05/01/0501africa.html). Again, I think the whole idea is BS- because any of idea of improving humanity via eugenics would be quickly made obsolete by germ-line genetic engineering, which is quickly made obsolete by somatic (post-birth) genetic engineering, which is made obsolete by biosynthesis (engineering the cell directly via nano/micro machines) which is made obsolete by cybernetics. So you are like 4 steps behind if you advocate any sort of eugenics.

And is capitalism racist? Hell yeah it's racist!

Skooma Addict

10th August 2010, 17:04

Rothbard the economist was much better than Rothbard the social theorist or Rothbard the philosopher. Rothbard's view on this subject does not reflect any kind of Austrian consensus.

Like eugenics of old, "scientific racialism" is necessary today to explain the "natural" distribution of wealth via the "free market", and rationalize inequality. Necessary for Rothbard and Rockwell maybe. But not necessary for most other free market economists (I don't mean to imply here that Rockwell is an economist), or even most other Austrians.

Good article. I have said for a long time of course that there is an obvious link between Libertarianism, particularly of the Austrian variety and fascism.I am not sure if I see any such link. For example, I do not see how any of today's top Austrians can be linked to fascism (Boettke, Prychitko, ect). So what exactly do you mean here? That a few individual Libertarians or Austrians can be linked to fascism?

That view is actually more dangerous than the views espoused by European xenophobic parties. If some people are deemed naturally "less able", it would be an easy thing to advocate sterilisation programmes, eugenics or ethnic cleansing since the "natural rights" would be compromised if these "bad people" got the upper hand. You could not be a supporter of Libertarian natural rights and at the same time advocate sterilization programmes or ethnic cleansing, as those would violate the "bad peoples" natural rights.

Dermezel

10th August 2010, 17:21

Okay Skooma so why are black people disproportionately in poverty? Why have they been so for almost a century? Either the wealth is concentrated, and wealth has a certain inertia, or they are genetically inferior.

Skooma Addict

10th August 2010, 17:25

I think it is a combination of reasons, none of which are black people being naturally or genetically inferior. I don't think there is any one reason.

Dermezel

10th August 2010, 17:28

I think it is a combination of reasons, none of which are black people being naturally or genetically inferior. I don't think there is any one reason.

Well maybe it is environmental reasons i.e. capitalism. You already agree Communism is good in theory. So if it can work in practice, why oppose it? Do you oppose Star Trek?

Skooma Addict

10th August 2010, 17:40

Well maybe it is environmental reasons i.e. capitalism. You already agree Communism is good in theory. So if it can work in practice, why oppose it? Do you oppose Star Trek?

I do think environmental reasons such as government policies play a part. I do not know where I agreed that Communism is good in theory. I also don't think it could work in practice on any kind of large scale, and history supports my position. So I oppose it on practical and theoretical grounds.

The only form of socialism which I am aware of that I don't believe completely and miserably fails in theory is the "post-Hayekian" socialism of Burczak. Even though it needs to be elaborated on further before it is worthy to be accepted.

And I have always thought Star Trek sucked.

Dermezel

10th August 2010, 17:51

I do think environmental reasons such as government policies p

But don't you think affirmative action promotes black people? Look say if there is an economic system. And it has inertia. Say one person "earns" a billion dollars. That puts them and their descendants over others for a long time. And say others- like blacks- are born into discrimination and debt. Can you see how this leads to racial differences in economics now?

I mean basically all blacks started as slaves. And so have to compete against whites who were born "masters" (not all but some- that is a different debate), so one starts with say 100 or 1000 times more wealth. That unfair advantage can continue for generations.

Dean

10th August 2010, 18:01

I am not sure if I see any such link. For example, I do not see how any of today's top Austrians can be linked to fascism (Boettke, Prychitko, ect). So what exactly do you mean here? That a few individual Libertarians or Austrians can be linked to fascism?
The supremacy of meritocracy in determining one's political and economic situation, as opposed to any egalitarian paradigm, is explicitly supported in both the Fascist and Capitalist-Libertarian tendencies.

Dermezel

10th August 2010, 18:12

Dean the only good cat is a flat cat (http://www.borrett.id.au/weirdmob/cats.htm).

Skooma Addict

10th August 2010, 18:33

But don't you think affirmative action promotes black people? Look say if there is an economic system. And it has inertia. Say one person "earns" a billion dollars. That puts them and their descendants over others for a long time. And say others- like blacks- are born into discrimination and debt. Can you see how this leads to racial differences in economics now?

I mean basically all blacks started as slaves. And so have to compete against whites who were born "masters" (not all but some- that is a different debate), so one starts with say 100 or 1000 times more wealth. That unfair advantage can continue for generations.

Affirmative action probably helps a lot of black people. I think that being born to a poor family makes a person more likely to be poor when they are older. As I said, I believe there are multiple reasons. I do not think it can just be reduced to discrimination, since I don't believe blacks are as discriminated against as other groups. For example, I think ugly people are more discriminated against than black people.

I also think the slavery argument is getting to the point of irrelevance. There were many indentured servants who came to America and were in just as bad of a condition as freed slaves were. But maybe slavery plays some role, I just don't think it would be a large one by any means.

Dean

10th August 2010, 19:10

Dean the only good cat is a flat cat (http://www.borrett.id.au/weirdmob/cats.htm).
Well we're talking about Austrians, not Australia ;-)

Dean

10th August 2010, 19:16

Affirmative action probably helps a lot of black people. I think that being born to a poor family makes a person more likely to be poor when they are older. As I said, I believe there are multiple reasons. I do not think it can just be reduced to discrimination, since I don't believe blacks are as discriminated against as other groups. For example, I think ugly people are more discriminated against than black people.

I also think the slavery argument is getting to the point of irrelevance. There were many indentured servants who came to America and were in just as bad of a condition as freed slaves were. But maybe slavery plays some role, I just don't think it would be a large one by any means.
The embolded part really exemplifies your inability to understand the economic stratification and entrenchment that exists within a market system. Blacks are still in a shit position for the same reason that multiple-generational immigrant families still are: the free market does not in general engender upwards social mobility. This is why international economic power is still heavily centered in Europe, more than a century after European powers ceased to play a wide-scale, explicit role in international colonization.

However, government policies have had the effect of exploitation of the black population, notably disparate drug laws.

Skooma Addict

10th August 2010, 20:19

The embolded part really exemplifies your inability to understand the economic stratification and entrenchment that exists within a market system. Blacks are still in a shit position for the same reason that multiple-generational immigrant families still are: the free market does not in general engender upwards social mobility. This is why international economic power is still heavily centered in Europe, more than a century after European powers ceased to play a wide-scale, explicit role in international colonization.

However, government policies have had the effect of exploitation of the black population, notably disparate drug laws.

Except there is upwards mobility, and being at the top does not mean you will stay there, so there is also downward mobility for the rich.

-Of those taxpayer households in the lowest quintile of income in 1999, 57.5% had moved up at least one quintile by 2007 and over 30% jumped two quintiles or more.

-Of those taxpayer households in the highest quintile in 1999, 37.7% fell at least one quintile, with 14.4% falling two quintiles or more.

-Of those in the top 1% in 1999, only 44.6% were still there in 2007.

-In all, over the 1999 through 2007 period, about 675,000 taxpayers earned over a $1 million for at least one year. Of these taxpayers, about 338,000 (50 percent) were a millionaire in only one year, while just 38,000 (6 percent) remained a millionaire in all nine years. Based on these results, it is clear that taxpayers move in and out of millionaire status with great frequency."

-Nearly 60 percent of taxpayers move up from the bottom quintile within this nine-year period.

-Nearly 60 percent of taxpayers are in a different quintile in 2007 than they were in 1999.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/sr180.pdf

http://www.coordinationproblem.org/2010/06/some-new-data-on-income-inequality.html

Kayser_Soso

10th August 2010, 20:36

I just want to say that I'll allow for the claim that all Austrians are not racist, but a huge amount of racists seem to be attracted to the Austrian school, and right-wing libertarianism in general. Even still, what matters is that one is often the company one keeps.

Dean

11th August 2010, 04:52

http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/sr180.pdf
Tax Foundation Estimates of State and Local Tax Burdens Are Not Reliablehttp://www.centeronbudget.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=100

For example, in their 2002 report the Tax Foundation claimed that tax burdens had risen since 2000 in 38 states. But three years later, it issued a revision that showed only eight states had higher tax burdens in 2002 than in 2000 — not the 38 states it had initially claimed. (Data from the Census Bureau shows that the tax burden had risen between 2000 and 2002 in only four states.)
When the Tax Foundation’s initial report was released in April 2002, a number of states were debating whether to address their budget shortfalls with additional tax revenue or through budget cuts. Tax Foundation “information” that tax burdens already had been rising in a state over the past two years could have influenced the debate. But, as the Tax Foundation’s own revision showed, the initial “information” wasn’t true. So any policy implications that were drawn from the Tax Foundation’s report were unfounded.

One is led to skepticism on the Tax Foundations' findings in general. But let's address the issue more directly - the following graph shows that the US has less economic mobility than Social-Democratic France: http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/national/20050515_CLASS_GRAPHIC/index_02.html

European Nations in general have higher social mobility: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/17/social-immobility-climbin_n_501788.html

Plus, income inequality is growing: http://www.businessinsider.com/not-everyone-is-hurting--the-rich-get-richer-as-the-income-inequality-gap-explodes-2010-3

The Organization for economic cooperation and Development agrees: http://www.oecd.org/document/14/0,3343,en_2649_37443_44575438_1_1_1_1,00.html (http://www.oecd.org/document/14/0,3343,en_2649_37443_44575438_1_1_1_1,00.html)

http://www.coordinationproblem.org/2010/06/some-new-data-on-income-inequality.html
Also, I'm interested to know why these quintile changes are granted the privilege of being called "market phenomena." Couldn't be because he's supports Mises and the rest, could it? :laugh:

Baseball

11th August 2010, 06:09

Skooma Addict

11th August 2010, 06:36

Tax Foundation Estimates of State and Local Tax Burdens Are Not ReliableI read through the Report and the only thing I found on methodology was this....

"The tax panel is a subsample of the IRS’s Statistics of Income Individual Tax Files from 1999 through 2007. Only tax returns present
in all nine years of the panel are included in the data used for this report. After these adjustments, the panel data used for this report include a sample of 62,412 tax returns representing 91.4 million returns."

I do not know if that is a large enough sample for accurate projections. The fact that the methodology was given in the middle of the paper was somewhat suspicious. However, I also found this...

A study by Sawhill and Condon (1992) examined income mobility using the Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID) for 1967 through 1986. The authors focused on the working age population (between the ages of 25 and 54 in 1967 and 1977) and calculated what happened to their incomes over the subsequent decade (1967 through 1976 and 1977 through 1986).
The study found that 44 percent of families in the bottom quintile in 1967 had moved to a higher quintile by 1976. For the decade beginning in 1977, 47 percent of families in the bottom quintile at the start of the decade had moved to a higher quintile by the end of the decade. Slightly greater mobility was found for the top quintile with 48 percent moving down to a lower quintile in the first decade and 50 percent moving to a lower quintile
in the second decade. A later study by McMurrer and Sawhill (1996b) concluded that mobility rates had remained largely unchanged during this 20-year period.and

In a new study using a more detailed tax panel developed by the Treasury Department, Auten and Gee (2009) confirm the basic findings of the earlier research: roughly 50 percent of households move out of the bottom quintile and the top quintile within ten years. Importantly, this study also considers whether the degree of mobility has changed over the past two decades, but finds that this basic statistic has remained largely unchanged over this time period.
The latter study was also supposedly more detailed to deal with criticisms of a prior study by Krugman himself. There are also other studies shown as well but I don't want to make this post too long.

I have not read these studies (maybe I will later). I am just showing that they are out there. You have yet to cite any studies which explicitly claim the opposite. Showing that European countries have greater social mobility that the U.S. is a red herring. The initial claim was...

"the free market does not in general engender upwards social mobility."

...so you need to cite some study which supports this position. Then, we can look at the methodologies employed by some of the studies cited above and any other studies you cite, after which we can determine the more methodologically sound study.

The problem is that this whole thing is complicated by the fact that the U.S. is not a free market by any means, unless you want to replace the words "free market" with "America" and modify your initial point.

I have a feeling the discussion would go better if we (for now) focus more on theoretical reasons for our claims. So...

What theoretical reasons do you have for believing that a free market would "engender upwards social mobility?"

Also, I'm interested to know why these quintile changes are granted the privilege of being called "market phenomena." Couldn't be because he's supports Mises and the rest, could it? :laugh:On some issues he supports Mises, while on others he does not.

Dean

11th August 2010, 17:02

You've ignored my examples (I could provide more but I assume that you'll ignore those too) instead offering the following:

"the free market does not in general engender upwards social mobility."

...so you need to cite some study which supports this position. Then, we can look at the methodologies employed by some of the studies cited above and any other studies you cite, after which we can determine the more methodologically sound study.
Actually, I think the study is probably fairly accurate. What is interesting is that other articles cite the same data as indication that social mobility is weak in the US. I believe one of them is listed above.

The problem is that this whole thing is complicated by the fact that the U.S. is not a free market by any means, unless you want to replace the words "free market" with "America" and modify your initial point.
What does this even mean for you anymore? You believe in a state (which we know will affect the market, since the state is an economic fact). It will never really be "free" 100% and you accept this.

I have a feeling the discussion would go better if we (for now) focus more on theoretical reasons for our claims. So...

What theoretical reasons do you have for believing that a free market would "engender upwards social mobility?"
I'm assuming you just worded that improperly. So, statistics which cite this fact are all above - everything from major newspapers to the OECD confirm that France (and Europe in general) has more social mobility than the US - the latter of which, of course, has freer markets.

You're simply ignoring the facts that have been brought to the table, instead seeking theoretical obfuscation.

RGacky3

11th August 2010, 18:54

Except there is upwards mobility, and being at the top does not mean you will stay there, so there is also downward mobility for the rich.

Theres that in every system, including in the USSR, in monarchies, and so on, so what.

Skooma Addict

11th August 2010, 21:11

You've ignored my examples (I could provide more but I assume that you'll ignore those too) instead offering the following:Based on your brief descriptions of the articles, none of them are evidence for the point you are supposed to prove. I am not going to read through all of them.

Actually, I think the study is probably fairly accurate. What is interesting is that other articles cite the same data as indication that social mobility is weak in the US. I believe one of them is listed above.Wait, didn't you just say that it was not reliable? But now that your sources rely on the same data, it suddenly becomes reliable?

What does this even mean for you anymore? You believe in a state (which we know will affect the market, since the state is an economic fact). It will never really be "free" 100% and you accept this.America is not even a relatively free market anymore. I am fine with someone claiming that a government which only protects contracts and ownership claims to pursue a "free market" policy. But America today is nothing near a free market. So it cannot be cited as evidence for your claim.

America in the past was closer to a free market than it is now.

I'm assuming you just worded that improperly. So, statistics which cite this fact are all above - everything from major newspapers to the OECD confirm that France (and Europe in general) has more social mobility than the US - the latter of which, of course, has freer markets.The U.S. has freer markets in some sectors of the economy relative to some European countries. However, the argument was not whether America had more upward social mobility than Europe. The argument was that free markets do not generally allow social mobility. The entire America Europe comparison is a red herring.

Not only that, but you claim that some of your statistics rely on evidence which you claimed in the previous post was unreliable.

You're simply ignoring the facts that have been brought to the table, instead seeking theoretical obfuscation. The facts which you have brought to the table, while facts, are not relevant facts. Also, it is not like you specifically made any kind of reply to the other two studies I presented either. I am not seeking theoretical obfuscation. I am asking you to explain why the free market supposedly hampers upward mobility. It also helps us figure out what allows for the upward mobility that we do see. I say it is in large part due to the market, even though it is hampered.

But if you are going to claim that the initial study is reliable, then I refer you to post #21.

You can have the last word.

Demogorgon

12th August 2010, 19:05

I am not sure if I see any such link. For example, I do not see how any of today's top Austrians can be linked to fascism (Boettke, Prychitko, ect). So what exactly do you mean here? That a few individual Libertarians or Austrians can be linked to fascism?

Well Hoppe springs immediately to mind as a good example. Also of course Mises had links with fascists both before and after the war and the Austro-fascist government of Dollfuss used his theory (and his services of course) for the basis of its economic policy with predictably awful results.

I refer mostly however to the general link you see. It doesn't take very long to see that Austrians do not pay much interest to "freedom" apart from their very narrow definition. Most are very socially Conservative (at the very least) and have no interest whatsoever in individual freedom in the personal sphere.

It goes beyond that though. If-to take a fairly anecdotal example-you look at Mises.org you immediately see all sorts of discussions about "natural rights" not applying to "savages" and so forth and indeed to take the other side of the example. If you look at fascist forums they oftyen show great enthusiasm for Austrian style economics.

If you look at real world politics you also see quite a link. The (most significant) political party with the strongest ideological base in Austrianism that I am aware of is the Freedom Front is South Africa and if you are unaware of its unsavoury history. Look it up.

The reason for all of this is obvious of course. Both ideologies are based on the same sort of premises. Rejection of equality and democracy, support for hierarchical social structures and the belief that freedom is best achieved through them and so forth.

Sorry for any typos in this post. I am not used to this keyboard.

Dimentio

12th August 2010, 19:25

I think that a free market "would" be quite mobile upward if it worked like Bosnia or Somalia, namely that if you take what you want at gunpoint and the victim have to blame themselves, then a guy with a knife or a gun in 1993 could become a slumlord in 2003. That is basically one of the few ways in a free market system for anyone not gifted with contacts, charms or money to make him- or herself wealthy.

Skooma Addict

12th August 2010, 19:52

Well Hoppe springs immediately to mind as a good example. Also of course Mises had links with fascists both before and after the war and the Austro-fascist government of Dollfuss used his theory (and his services of course) for the basis of its economic policy with predictably awful results.

I refer mostly however to the general link you see. It doesn't take very long to see that Austrians do not pay much interest to "freedom" apart from their very narrow definition. Most are very socially Conservative (at the very least) and have no interest whatsoever in individual freedom in the personal sphere.

It goes beyond that though. If-to take a fairly anecdotal example-you look at Mises.org you immediately see all sorts of discussions about "natural rights" not applying to "savages" and so forth and indeed to take the other side of the example. If you look at fascist forums they oftyen show great enthusiasm for Austrian style economics.

If you look at real world politics you also see quite a link. The (most significant) political party with the strongest ideological base in Austrianism that I am aware of is the Freedom Front is South Africa and if you are unaware of its unsavoury history. Look it up.

The reason for all of this is obvious of course. Both ideologies are based on the same sort of premises. Rejection of equality and democracy, support for hierarchical social structures and the belief that freedom is best achieved through them and so forth.

Sorry for any typos in this post. I am not used to this keyboard. I have not read very much from Hoppe, as I don't think he is a very good economist, social theorist, or philosopher. But from what i have read, I have never seen any kind of connection to fascism. I vaguely remember reading that he was once a socialist. The only connection I could maybe see is some closet supporter of Monarchy, but even that is extremely dishonest and unfair since he explicitly claimed that he was not a monarchist. So what connection does he have to fascism? Maybe you read something that I have not.

I also think that claiming that most Austrians are socially conservative is extremely different from the claim that that they are linked to fascism. I also don't really know if it is true that most Austrians are socially conservative. Many for example favor the complete legalization of all drugs. I think most are "conservative" on some issues and "progressive" on others. Many are also deeply concerned about personal freedom. I am not sure where you got the impression that they are not. For example, most are pro gay marriage, pro gun, against drug regulation, anti-government nanny state, ect.

Natural Rights is dying on the Mises forums. Compared to say a year or two ago, it is extremely noticeable how little people advocate natural rights than before. Regardless, I don't think that is a very meaningful point anyways. I mean, if I really tried I bet I could find some people on Revleft who support the North Korean dictatorship.

I haven't looked through fascist forums so I don't really know what they think. I will have to look up the Freedom Front in South Africa as well since I have no idea what it is.

Austrian economics and Libertarianism are certainly not based on the same principals as Fascism. AE is value free, and so to say that it is "anti-democracy" is incoherent. Most Libertarians are pro-democracy. Anarcho-capitalism is very much on the fringe. Libertarians generally are also for equality under the law. They are not for egalitarianism, but they are certainly not anti-equality in the sense that fascists are.

Demogorgon

12th August 2010, 21:26

I have not read very much from Hoppe, as I don't think he is a very good economist, social theorist, or philosopher. But from what i have read, I have never seen any kind of connection to fascism. I vaguely remember reading that he was once a socialist. The only connection I could maybe see is some closet supporter of Monarchy, but even that is extremely dishonest and unfair since he explicitly claimed that he was not a monarchist. So what connection does he have to fascism? Maybe you read something that I have not.
I was thinking of his links to certain blood and soil style "germanic" groups in Europe. Plus of course his view that only white people should be allowed to emigrate to America and Europe. As for the monarchist thing, it isn't exactly "closeted" he explicitly stated that a monarchy is better than democracy because a monarch has a long term interest in maintaining their property. of course what he really goes for is a sort of quasi feudal system of private owners governing territory a bit like the Lords of old, with pretty brutal rules for those who live in such a society (no opposing political views, no homosexuality etc).

I also think that claiming that most Austrians are socially conservative is extremely different from the claim that that they are linked to fascism. I also don't really know if it is true that most Austrians are socially conservative. Many for example favor the complete legalization of all drugs. I think most are "conservative" on some issues and "progressive" on others. Many are also deeply concerned about personal freedom. I am not sure where you got the impression that they are not. For example, most are pro gay marriage, pro gun, against drug regulation, anti-government nanny state, ect. Well it is a stretch to jump straight from social Conservatism to fascism of course, and I wouldn't be stupid enough to try and do it, however I was trying to show a sort of general inclination towards authoritarianism. I'm not just taking this accusation from my own experience with Austrians, David Prychitko for instance has complained about being one of the few Austrians who isn't a social Conservative. Now while you personally (if you actually identify as an Austrian) do not strike me as a social Conservative, most of your colleagues are.

Natural Rights is dying on the Mises forums. Compared to say a year or two ago, it is extremely noticeable how little people advocate natural rights than before.Well I haven't actually had a look there for a year or so, but heaven help it if it has become even worse.

Regardless, I don't think that is a very meaningful point anyways. I mean, if I really tried I bet I could find some people on Revleft who support the North Korean dictatorship.I regret to tell you that you would not need to look very hard. Check through my post history and you will find many of my recent posts have been criticising those very idiots. However, and forgive me if it sounds like I am making excuses here, I think those idiots are naive fools who are either genuinely misinformed about North Korea or who are purposefully deluding themselves out of desperation to believe it is a good example of socialism. I do not think they would support North Korea if they knew what it was really like. Their idiotic counterparts over on the Mises forum strike me as knowing exactly what they are saying.

I haven't looked through fascist forums so I don't really know what they think. I will have to look up the Freedom Front in South Africa as well since I have no idea what it is. The Freedom Front is the remains of the various White far right groups that split from the National Party in the early eighties when Botha made some cosmetic reforms to Apartheid that they felt were still going to far. Their various groups were a major force in White Politics until multi-racial elections came along, these days they are less potent and only have a few MPs in Parliament. Also they are less associated with violence now, presumably because it has occurred to the leaders that while most of them were given an amnesty for previous bad deeds, they are unlikely to be so lucky a second time. Anyway these days they are mostly focussed on the creation of a Volkstaat that is a state for White Afrikaners, either an autonomous part of South Africa or an actual independent state. Other policies include straight Austrian economics and very Conservative social policies (bringing back the death penalty and abolishing gay marriage for instance).

Interestingly they often defend their call for a Volkstaat with explicit quotes from Mises.

Austrian economics and Libertarianism are certainly not based on the same principals as Fascism. AE is value free, and so to say that it is "anti-democracy" is incoherent. Most Libertarians are pro-democracy. Anarcho-capitalism is very much on the fringe. Libertarians generally are also for equality under the law. They are not for egalitarianism, but they are certainly not anti-equality in the sense that fascists are. I think it is pretty absurd to say Austrian Economics is value free, not least because no matter how hard one tries, it is very difficult to keep economics value free in general. To be sure the early thinkers in the Austrian School did make an attempt at being value free but to say their modern counterparts do...

Anyway I dispute that Libertarians are pro-Democracy because I never see them demonstrating it. Every Libertarian party of any significance (let's say every party with seats in a national legislature) seems to fight for lessening democracy in their country, and just try suggesting to an American Libertarian that America should so much as move forward to standards of European Democracy (never mind socialist standards) with proportional representation (ironically absolutely vital for them to ever succeed), unicameralism or at least a dominant lower house (or even a more representative upper one) and so on. They don't like it very much.

Anyway back to the main point, equality under the law? Only a very flimsy definition of it. Try telling a Libertarian that a rich and poor person should have the same quality of representation in court or that fines should pubnish the rich and poor equally (see that wealthy man in Switzerland yesterday who was hit with close to a million dollar speeding fine because Switzerland fines a percentage of your income rather than a fixed sum? The average Libertarian would feel he should have gotten away with a sum that means nothing to someone like him but would sink an ordinary person).

Beyond that however I did not mean legal niceties (in theory the fascist Governments gave people equality in court too). I meant the fundamental principle believed by most Libertarians. That people are unequal and there should be a hierarchy to reflect this.

Skooma Addict

12th August 2010, 23:31

I was thinking of his links to certain blood and soil style "germanic" groups in Europe. Plus of course his view that only white people should be allowed to emigrate to America and Europe. As for the monarchist thing, it isn't exactly "closeted" he explicitly stated that a monarchy is better than democracy because a monarch has a long term interest in maintaining their property. of course what he really goes for is a sort of quasi feudal system of private owners governing territory a bit like the Lords of old, with pretty brutal rules for those who live in such a society (no opposing political views, no homosexuality etc).

I am unaware of any of his links to any groups in Europe, so I would have to read through that myself, but I don't recall him saying only white people should be able to emigrate. I vaguely remember him saying that people should have to pass some test before they emigrate, or that they should be required to have some formal invitation by a resident, but I haven't read anything saying that only race X should be able to emigrate. Hoppe does think Monarchy is better than democracy. That certainly is out of the closet. However, he still is not a Monarchist.

I don't really know what words I could use to describe what he believes, but fascism would not be one of them. He believes in some society where tradition and hierarchy play a central role, and where property owners largely determine what is and is not acceptable morally or culturally. There is a "natural elite," but they still must abide by the NAP. The NAP which he believes in seems to be in contrast to fascist ethics. He definitely doesn't believe in economic fascism either since he is against the government.

Well it is a stretch to jump straight from social Conservatism to fascism of course, and I wouldn't be stupid enough to try and do it, however I was trying to show a sort of general inclination towards authoritarianism. I'm not just taking this accusation from my own experience with Austrians, David Prychitko for instance has complained about being one of the few Austrians who isn't a social Conservative. Now while you personally (if you actually identify as an Austrian) do not strike me as a social Conservative, most of your colleagues are.

I don't think that being a social conservative necessarily means you are more authoritarian than someone who is socially liberal. It all depends on the extent that you force your views on others. But as I said, I just don't see the conservative trend that you and Prychitko are referring to. In no way is it socially conservative to want to legalize all drugs for example, yet most Austrians want this. I guess there is a socially conservative branch of Austrians -Hoppe, Rockwell, Rothbard- who are conservative on some issues, but other than that I honestly do not see the connection. On some issues many Austrians may be conservative, but on others they certainly are not.

Well I haven't actually had a look there for a year or so, but heaven help it if it has become even worse.

It has gotten much much better as of late. The conversation is much more in depth and diverse compared to, say, a year ago. For example...

http://mises.org/Community/forums/p/18680/353217.aspx#353217

I regret to tell you that you would not need to look very hard. Check through my post history and you will find many of my recent posts have been criticising those very idiots. However, and forgive me if it sounds like I am making excuses here, I think those idiots are naive fools who are either genuinely misinformed about North Korea or who are purposefully deluding themselves out of desperation to believe it is a good example of socialism. I do not think they would support North Korea if they knew what it was really like. Their idiotic counterparts over on the Mises forum strike me as knowing exactly what they are saying.

The people at the Mises forums generally believe what they say. Some of them do sometimes seem to fall back on economic reductionism and some implicit belief that economics is all one needs to understand society. But other than that, and the occasional Keynes bash by kid who hasn't read Keynes, they are pretty good. There are the uninformed annoying people, but you will have that on every forum. In other words, the Mises forum suffers from the same problems that every other political forum on the internet does. But compared to the other ones, it is pretty darn good.

The Freedom Front is the remains of the various White far right groups that split from the National Party in the early eighties when Botha made some cosmetic reforms to Apartheid that they felt were still going to far. Their various groups were a major force in White Politics until multi-racial elections came along, these days they are less potent and only have a few MPs in Parliament. Also they are less associated with violence now, presumably because it has occurred to the leaders that while most of them were given an amnesty for previous bad deeds, they are unlikely to be so lucky a second time. Anyway these days they are mostly focussed on the creation of a Volkstaat that is a state for White Afrikaners, either an autonomous part of South Africa or an actual independent state. Other policies include straight Austrian economics and very Conservative social policies (bringing back the death penalty and abolishing gay marriage for instance).

Interestingly they often defend their call for a Volkstaat with explicit quotes from Mises.

Interesting. South Africa is a pretty interesting country. I do see a somewhat small trend for conservatives to attempt to "ride on the back of Austrian Economics" for political purposes. For example, on a radio show some conservative was calling for a "return to Austrian economics." The mere fact that he would make this claim shows that he does not know what AE is. I also know Rush Limbaugh evoked Hayek on more than one occasion. But these are people who are merely taking advantage of AE for political purposes because they perceive it to be anti-big government. These people are not reflective of Austrians as a whole. It is sort of similar to how a lot of politicians will take advantage of Global Warming for political purposes. But I think you are taking this somewhat new trend and then making over generalizations.

I think it is pretty absurd to say Austrian Economics is value free, not least because no matter how hard one tries, it is very difficult to keep economics value free in general. To be sure the early thinkers in the Austrian School did make an attempt at being value free but to say their modern counterparts do...

Anyway I dispute that Libertarians are pro-Democracy because I never see them demonstrating it. Every Libertarian party of any significance (let's say every party with seats in a national legislature) seems to fight for lessening democracy in their country, and just try suggesting to an American Libertarian that America should so much as move forward to standards of European Democracy (never mind socialist standards) with proportional representation (ironically absolutely vital for them to ever succeed), unicameralism or at least a dominant lower house (or even a more representative upper one) and so on. They don't like it very much.

Anyway back to the main point, equality under the law? Only a very flimsy definition of it. Try telling a Libertarian that a rich and poor person should have the same quality of representation in court or that fines should pubnish the rich and poor equally (see that wealthy man in Switzerland yesterday who was hit with close to a million dollar speeding fine because Switzerland fines a percentage of your income rather than a fixed sum? The average Libertarian would feel he should have gotten away with a sum that means nothing to someone like him but would sink an ordinary person).

Beyond that however I did not mean legal niceties (in theory the fascist Governments gave people equality in court too). I meant the fundamental principle believed by most Libertarians. That people are unequal and there should be a hierarchy to reflect this.

Austrian Economics, as a science is value free. All it does is attempt to explain the results of certain policies and actions. It does not say which results are preferable. That is for each person to decide himself. But most people will take insights from AE, and then use those to shape or reinforce their beliefs. So the practitioners themselves make normative claims, but it is not like Austrian Economics itself says X is better than Y.

I think that most libertarians are pro democracy in the sense that everyone today uses the term. They are not pro-democracy in all spheres of life. But if you went up to a self described libertarian, and told them you were against democracy, they would (wrongly) off hand assume you are some kook. This is why they always refer back to the constitution. They are pro-democracy in the political sphere. Although I am only familiar with Libertarians in America, so I can't speak for others in other countries.

As for that Switzerland example, that is very interesting. Punishing people in proportion to how rich they are seems like a very interesting idea. Although, someone could just turn around and say that you do not have equality under the law in that scenario, since one person must pay more than another for the same crime. So say, if everyone had to pay 100 dollars, that is equality under the law, since everyone must pay the same amount.

But what I meant was that they typically want the law to be impartial and not discriminate among persons. Something similar to Hayek's "rule of law." Or at least, that is what I hope they believe. I haven't looked that much into what mainstream libertarians beliefs are regarding the legal system. But that is just what I can make of it from what I have seen.

Demogorgon

13th August 2010, 01:40

I am unaware of any of his links to any groups in Europe, so I would have to read through that myself, but I don't recall him saying only white people should be able to emigrate. I vaguely remember him saying that people should have to pass some test before they emigrate, or that they should be required to have some formal invitation by a resident, but I haven't read anything saying that only race X should be able to emigrate. Hoppe does think Monarchy is better than democracy. That certainly is out of the closet. However, he still is not a Monarchist.

I don't really know what words I could use to describe what he believes, but fascism would not be one of them. He believes in some society where tradition and hierarchy play a central role, and where property owners largely determine what is and is not acceptable morally or culturally. There is a "natural elite," but they still must abide by the NAP. The NAP which he believes in seems to be in contrast to fascist ethics. He definitely doesn't believe in economic fascism either since he is against the government.
For all it is cited by Libertarians the NAP can mean anything you want it to. It says you should not "initiate force" but the beauty of that is that you basically get to choose what is retaliatory and what isn't. Libertarians seem to be quite happy to condone force that I see as obviously illegitimate while condemning force I see as justifiable self defence. I too could make my ideology conform with the NAP so long as I get to choose when force is initiated and when it is retaliatory and the only answer you would be able to give to that is the one I have given here. The whole thing comes down to an entirely arbitrary distinction, and this brings us back to Hoppe.

Hoppe may well believe in the NAP but as he sees it, there is no violation of it in exiling by force individuals for holding contrary political views or falling in love with someone of the same gender as themselves. Now so long as he gets to pick and choose what is initiating force and what isn't, he can make that fit, but picking and choosing is all we can do and thus a complete lunatic of a fascist could do the same thing.

That of course is why I see the NAP as utterly incoherent, but I digress.

I don't think that being a social conservative necessarily means you are more authoritarian than someone who is socially liberal. It all depends on the extent that you force your views on others. But as I said, I just don't see the conservative trend that you and Prychitko are referring to. In no way is it socially conservative to want to legalize all drugs for example, yet most Austrians want this. I guess there is a socially conservative branch of Austrians -Hoppe, Rockwell, Rothbard- who are conservative on some issues, but other than that I honestly do not see the connection. On some issues many Austrians may be conservative, but on others they certainly are not.

We are not talking about secretly held private views here, we are talking about political viewpoints and the desire to see them enacted. As such conservatism has to be inherently authoritarian because it is about imposition. Telling someone they cannot marry the person of their choice is inherently more authoritarian than telling them that they can. This should be obvious. Now obviously the social conservative can-and does over and over again, say that same sex marriage being "imposed on them" is authoritarian, but when last I checked nobody is telling them that they ought to enter into such marriages themselves!

I do not mean this to turn into an argument for same sex marriage as that is an entirely different subject, I just mean to demonstrate that an unrestrictive social policy is inherently less authoritarian than a restrictive one. Incidentally, in case you try to be clever and apply this to economics, there are times when using public power to stop private restrictions is highly justified. For instance it increases freedom to ban a family from forcing a daughter into a marriage she does not want to be entered into. The important thing is to prevent as much restriction as reasonably possible, not worrying about who the agent is, and that is where Libertarians in general (the well meaning ones anyway) go wrong. But once again I digress.

Another area that really stands out though is how they react to law and order issues, and by that I mean an obsessive love of punishment. Over the last hundred years or so, the world has been moving away from the death penalty and in western Europe you won't even find mainstream conservative parties advocating it. Indeed they often strengthen laws against it when the issue arises. If you listen to the rants of some Libertarians however, they want executions for a vast number of crimes, I saw one argue for the death penalty (with no possibility of reprieve) for every violent crime no matter how petty. Amusingly enough he thought it would be a good way to boost Libertarian principles by letting the private sector doing it with every condemned being auctioned off to the highest bidder to be killed in whatever manner they chose (he excitedly predicted there would be public gladiatorial fights).

I am not just talking about such obvious extreme examples of inhumanity however. In general they have an attitude to punishment that would make courts in Singapore blush (incidentally a country they often praise for other reasons). We had one individual on this very board advocate whipping for petty vandalism to give one example.

The people at the Mises forums generally believe what they say. Some of them do sometimes seem to fall back on economic reductionism and some implicit belief that economics is all one needs to understand society. But other than that, and the occasional Keynes bash by kid who hasn't read Keynes, they are pretty good. There are the uninformed annoying people, but you will have that on every forum. In other words, the Mises forum suffers from the same problems that every other political forum on the internet does. But compared to the other ones, it is pretty darn good.

That is what I am talking about. They believe what they say. Much of the especially horrible stuff is not being said as a throwaway comment by some idiot who wants to shock his parents by saying immoral things. It is being said by people who honest to goodness believe them.

Interesting. South Africa is a pretty interesting country. I do see a somewhat small trend for conservatives to attempt to "ride on the back of Austrian Economics" for political purposes. For example, on a radio show some conservative was calling for a "return to Austrian economics." The mere fact that he would make this claim shows that he does not know what AE is. I also know Rush Limbaugh evoked Hayek on more than one occasion. But these are people who are merely taking advantage of AE for political purposes because they perceive it to be anti-big government. These people are not reflective of Austrians as a whole. It is sort of similar to how a lot of politicians will take advantage of Global Warming for political purposes. But I think you are taking this somewhat new trend and then making over generalizations.

I don't see it as a new trend at all. To take an example I have already given there was the Dolffuss example and of course the use of it by bthe white right in South Africa goes way back (actually the black right have been pretty keen on it too. The Ciskei Government used fairly straight Austrian economic policies latterly).

Austrian Economics, as a science is value free. All it does is attempt to explain the results of certain policies and actions. It does not say which results are preferable. That is for each person to decide himself. But most people will take insights from AE, and then use those to shape or reinforce their beliefs. So the practitioners themselves make normative claims, but it is not like Austrian Economics itself says X is better than Y. Oh come on. Find me an Austrian who doesn't have a clear ideology behind their economics. The suppositions, much of which causes it to frequently dismissed as crank economics are there to lead to clear conclusions.

I think that most libertarians are pro democracy in the sense that everyone today uses the term. They are not pro-democracy in all spheres of life. But if you went up to a self described libertarian, and told them you were against democracy, they would (wrongly) off hand assume you are some kook. This is why they always refer back to the constitution. They are pro-democracy in the political sphere. Although I am only familiar with Libertarians in America, so I can't speak for others in other countries. Obviously my view of democracy goes a bit further than the polyarchy commonly referred to, but I wasn't talking about that. I was simply pointing out that Libertarians in America don't much like the thought of moving to even Western European levels of democracy. Not to mention of course that those in Western Europe would rather like to regress to American levels. Western Europe is no oasis of democracy of course, some countries like France are actually worse than America institutionally speaking, but generally the standard is higher than in the States. Surely someone who valued democracy would at least wish to move in a positive direction?

As for that Switzerland example, that is very interesting. Punishing people in proportion to how rich they are seems like a very interesting idea. Although, someone could just turn around and say that you do not have equality under the law in that scenario, since one person must pay more than another for the same crime. So say, if everyone had to pay 100 dollars, that is equality under the law, since everyone must pay the same amount. Yes, but that is the point. it seems obvious to me that extracting a hundred dollars from Bill Gates and from some poor bastard who can barely afford their rent is too entirely different things and one is far more lenient than the other. It strikes me that those who do not want fines to reflect income and wealth are looking for leniency for the well off.

But what I meant was that they typically want the law to be impartial and not discriminate among persons. Something similar to Hayek's "rule of law." Or at least, that is what I hope they believe. I haven't looked that much into what mainstream libertarians beliefs are regarding the legal system. But that is just what I can make of it from what I have seen.
Yes, well we could cite Anatole France for what "impartial law" in an unequal society means and that is even before we start talking about how you are first of all more likely to get off if you have the wealth for a good lawyer and secondly and more importantly, virtually guaranteed to get a lesser sentence if you have a skilled enough lawyer.

Equality before the law is barely equality even a very narrow sense without wider equality, so it cannot be cited to claim that Libertarians do not desire an intrinsically unequal society.

Skooma Addict

13th August 2010, 02:39

For all it is cited by Libertarians the NAP can mean anything you want it to. It says you should not "initiate force" but the beauty of that is that you basically get to choose what is retaliatory and what isn't. Libertarians seem to be quite happy to condone force that I see as obviously illegitimate while condemning force I see as justifiable self defence. I too could make my ideology conform with the NAP so long as I get to choose when force is initiated and when it is retaliatory and the only answer you would be able to give to that is the one I have given here. The whole thing comes down to an entirely arbitrary distinction, and this brings us back to Hoppe.

Hoppe may well believe in the NAP but as he sees it, there is no violation of it in exiling by force individuals for holding contrary political views or falling in love with someone of the same gender as themselves. Now so long as he gets to pick and choose what is initiating force and what isn't, he can make that fit, but picking and choosing is all we can do and thus a complete lunatic of a fascist could do the same thing.

That of course is why I see the NAP as utterly incoherent, but I digress. I agree with you on the NAP. It requires a prior conception of justice to be coherent, but that conception itself is purely subjective, so to mention the NAP as some objective ethic makes no sense. For example, violating private property is not aggression for someone who does not accept the legitimacy of private property.

However, Hoppe incorrectly does think that he can say definitively what is and what is not aggression. He does believe that violating private property is an act of aggression, and he does believe that taxation is an act of aggression. So in fact he does believe fascism by its very nature violates the principle which he adheres to...the NAP. Hoppe has some extremely strange beliefs, but they are not fascist.

We are not talking about secretly held private views here, we are talking about political viewpoints and the desire to see them enacted. As such conservatism has to be inherently authoritarian because it is about imposition. Telling someone they cannot marry the person of their choice is inherently more authoritarian than telling them that they can. This should be obvious. Now obviously the social conservative can-and does over and over again, say that same sex marriage being "imposed on them" is authoritarian, but when last I checked nobody is telling them that they ought to enter into such marriages themselves!

I do not mean this to turn into an argument for same sex marriage as that is an entirely different subject, I just mean to demonstrate that an unrestrictive social policy is inherently less authoritarian than a restrictive one. Incidentally, in case you try to be clever and apply this to economics, there are times when using public power to stop private restrictions is highly justified. For instance it increases freedom to ban a family from forcing a daughter into a marriage she does not want to be entered into. The important thing is to prevent as much restriction as reasonably possible, not worrying about who the agent is, and that is where Libertarians in general (the well meaning ones anyway) go wrong. But once again I digress.

Another area that really stands out though is how they react to law and order issues, and by that I mean an obsessive love of punishment. Over the last hundred years or so, the world has been moving away from the death penalty and in western Europe you won't even find mainstream conservative parties advocating it. Indeed they often strengthen laws against it when the issue arises. If you listen to the rants of some Libertarians however, they want executions for a vast number of crimes, I saw one argue for the death penalty (with no possibility of reprieve) for every violent crime no matter how petty. Amusingly enough he thought it would be a good way to boost Libertarian principles by letting the private sector doing it with every condemned being auctioned off to the highest bidder to be killed in whatever manner they chose (he excitedly predicted there would be public gladiatorial fights).

I am not just talking about such obvious extreme examples of inhumanity however. In general they have an attitude to punishment that would make courts in Singapore blush (incidentally a country they often praise for other reasons). We had one individual on this very board advocate whipping for petty vandalism to give one example.As for policies that Austrians want to be enacted which are pro-freedom and/or not conservative, I already listed some. For example, pro gay marriage, legalization of all drugs, pro-gun, anti-eminent domain, anti-draft, anti-war, ect. As I said, on some issues they are conservative, and on some they are not. There is no trend one way or the other. Whether or not a position is "conservative" or "liberal" has no meaning to most of them.

What I meant by my claim that social conservatives are not necessarily more authoritarian is best illustrated by an example. If one group of social conservatives decide not to allow gay people in their house for dinner, I do not consider that authoritarian. But if some environmentalists somehow persuade the government to force a factory to close because it operates too close to some caribou reservation, I consider that authoritarian. So I agree with you, privately held beliefs are not what matter. What matters is policy, and people with what are considered "progressive" views can be just as authoritarian as anyone else.

I have noticed a love of punishment by some self proclaimed libertarians. But then again, adherents to Rothbardian natural rights emphasize the importance that punishments not be excessive. The people you are referring to are usually disgruntled conservatives who claim to have become libertarians.

But I can point to many self proclaimed socialists today and historically who are no better. It is not like socialists in practice have been the nicest people. So I don't think this is something unique to libertarianism. There are a lot of hippie libertarians too.:)

That is what I am talking about. They believe what they say. Much of the especially horrible stuff is not being said as a throwaway comment by some idiot who wants to shock his parents by saying immoral things. It is being said by people who honest to goodness believe them.Yes but my point was that they generally don't say things as stupid as giving support for North Korea. While there are some, there really aren't that many people there with such crazy beliefs. So they don't need to delude themselves like a supporter of North Korea would. But the ones with the really crazy beliefs (For example, it is good that Africans are starving-and yes, I encountered that-) are a small minority.

I don't see it as a new trend at all. To take an example I have already given there was the Dolffuss example and of course the use of it by bthe white right in South Africa goes way back (actually the black right have been pretty keen on it too. The Ciskei Government used fairly straight Austrian economic policies latterly).Which policies pursued by the Ciskei government were Austrian?

Oh come on. Find me an Austrian who doesn't have a clear ideology behind their economics. The suppositions, much of which causes it to frequently dismissed as crank economics are there to lead to clear conclusions.Austrian economists have ideologies which they follow. However, they use AE to support their ideologies. It is not like Austrian economics says "it is bad when the market rate of interest is above the natural rate."

Obviously my view of democracy goes a bit further than the polyarchy commonly referred to, but I wasn't talking about that. I was simply pointing out that Libertarians in America don't much like the thought of moving to even Western European levels of democracy. Not to mention of course that those in Western Europe would rather like to regress to American levels. Western Europe is no oasis of democracy of course, some countries like France are actually worse than America institutionally speaking, but generally the standard is higher than in the States. Surely someone who valued democracy would at least wish to move in a positive direction?What they want is a constitution which guarantees certain rights and a democratic government which is elected by the people. They do not want more or less democracy than that. They certainly do not want democracy to the extent that you do, but in no way could they be anti-democracy. As a reference point, people who are anti-democracy are Hoppe and Caplan.

Yes, but that is the point. it seems obvious to me that extracting a hundred dollars from Bill Gates and from some poor bastard who can barely afford their rent is too entirely different things and one is far more lenient than the other. It strikes me that those who do not want fines to reflect income and wealth are looking for leniency for the well off.I think I agree with the idea that Switzerland's way of doing it is better, but not because it is more equal. To me, both ways could be said to hold on to the principal of equality in their own ways. I think both "you must pay 100 dollars for committing crime X" and "you must pay X% if you commit crime X" could both defend themselves from claims that they are anti-equality. I think the latter is more humane, but that to me is a completely different statement in my mind.

Equality before the law is barely equality even a very narrow sense without wider equality, so it cannot be cited to claim that Libertarians do not desire an intrinsically unequal society. They desire a society which they know would be unequal. But they do not desire this society because they know it would be unequal. It is not like they value inequality like you vale equality. They just accept the fact that there would be inequality, and do not see it as a point for or against their beliefs. I for example am far more concerned about how humane a society is than how equal it is.

I also had something happen to me which has never happened before....I literally do not know if we got off topic or not. Did we get off topic or are we will on topic?

Demogorgon

13th August 2010, 14:42

I think this is the most interesting discussion I have had for a while.

I agree with you on the NAP. It requires a prior conception of justice to be coherent, but that conception itself is purely subjective, so to mention the NAP as some objective ethic makes no sense. For example, violating private property is not aggression for someone who does not accept the legitimacy of private property.

However, Hoppe incorrectly does think that he can say definitively what is and what is not aggression. He does believe that violating private property is an act of aggression, and he does believe that taxation is an act of aggression. So in fact he does believe fascism by its very nature violates the principle which he adheres to...the NAP. Hoppe has some extremely strange beliefs, but they are not fascist. Well the fascist accusation was based on his racial views, but coming back to the notion that supporting the NAP means he is not a fascist, I don't see how you can agree that the NAP can mean whatever a person wants it to mean and then say that holding a position contrary to fascism. All he is doing is trying to reconcile the cognitive dissonance caused by saying he is a Libertarian and holding what could be regarded as fascist views.

As for policies that Austrians want to be enacted which are pro-freedom and/or not conservative, I already listed some. For example, pro gay marriage, legalization of all drugs, pro-gun, anti-eminent domain, anti-draft, anti-war, ect. As I said, on some issues they are conservative, and on some they are not. There is no trend one way or the other. Whether or not a position is "conservative" or "liberal" has no meaning to most of them.

What I meant by my claim that social conservatives are not necessarily more authoritarian is best illustrated by an example. If one group of social conservatives decide not to allow gay people in their house for dinner, I do not consider that authoritarian. But if some environmentalists somehow persuade the government to force a factory to close because it operates too close to some caribou reservation, I consider that authoritarian. So I agree with you, privately held beliefs are not what matter. What matters is policy, and people with what are considered "progressive" views can be just as authoritarian as anyone else.

I have noticed a love of punishment by some self proclaimed libertarians. But then again, adherents to Rothbardian natural rights emphasize the importance that punishments not be excessive. The people you are referring to are usually disgruntled conservatives who claim to have become libertarians.

But I can point to many self proclaimed socialists today and historically who are no better. It is not like socialists in practice have been the nicest people. So I don't think this is something unique to libertarianism. There are a lot of hippie libertarians too.:)

Yes but my point was that they generally don't say things as stupid as giving support for North Korea. While there are some, there really aren't that many people there with such crazy beliefs. So they don't need to delude themselves like a supporter of North Korea would. But the ones with the really crazy beliefs (For example, it is good that Africans are starving-and yes, I encountered that-) are a small minority.I have encountered that kind of stupidity too, but I could also pick out some pretty spectacular self delusion. Praise of Somalia for instance seems like a direct counterpart to praise of North Korea.

1
Which policies pursued by the Ciskei government were Austrian?
The economic policy was directed by Leon Louw and Frances Kendall. Obviously there were some key Austrian policies it could not do. It couldn't adopt the gold standard for instance because the South African Government required it to use the Rand. But generally it was straight Libertarian economic policy with Austrian Rhetoric.

Austrian economists have ideologies which they follow. However, they use AE to support their ideologies. It is not like Austrian economics says "it is bad when the market rate of interest is above the natural rate." I think you are trying to separate the theory from people and claim it has some sort of pure purpose separated from the people using it. Nonsense, it does the same as any other economic theory which is to attempt to interpret economics through the filter of our own biases. And I would say that Austrians are far worse for this than most. The theory is ready made to come to the conclusions those using it want and nobody attempts to use its methodology without having decided in advance what they want the answer to be.

What they want is a constitution which guarantees certain rights and a democratic government which is elected by the people. They do not want more or less democracy than that. They certainly do not want democracy to the extent that you do, but in no way could they be anti-democracy. As a reference point, people who are anti-democracy are Hoppe and Caplan. I am not making myself clear it seems. I know they aren't as pro-democracy as me but I am not talking about that. I am talking about the fact that they want a minimal degree of it even by current standards. Once you filter out the ones who want to bring back property qualifications or whatever you still find that in the American instance to use the example with which you are most familiar they oppose moves to even the level of democracy seen in most industrialised nations. To take just one example: proportional representation. This is now the standard way of electing legislatures around the world. Yet suggest progressing to it in America to a Libertarian and they will shoot you down in flames, even though it is actually the only way they could obtain congressional representation. Their opposition to democracy seems to supercede even their own desire for political success.

I think I agree with the idea that Switzerland's way of doing it is better, but not because it is more equal. To me, both ways could be said to hold on to the principal of equality in their own ways. I think both "you must pay 100 dollars for committing crime X" and "you must pay X% if you commit crime X" could both defend themselves from claims that they are anti-equality. I think the latter is more humane, but that to me is a completely different statement in my mind. I am glad you think that way is better, but I think you are missing the reason why it is needed for equality. Using fixed fines shows considerable lenience to the wealthy. In other words if they are fined it has no impact whatsoever and they go entirely unpunished. Most Libertarians strongly support such a system.

They desire a society which they know would be unequal. But they do not desire this society because they know it would be unequal. It is not like they value inequality like you vale equality. They just accept the fact that there would be inequality, and do not see it as a point for or against their beliefs. I for example am far more concerned about how humane a society is than how equal it is.

I also had something happen to me which has never happened before....I literally do not know if we got off topic or not. Did we get off topic or are we will on topic?
Well you would need to describe to me what you regard as "humane". A society where a child's future prospects depend largely on accident of birth for instance is not very equal.

All the same I believe from experience than some-perhaps most-Libertarians are actively opposed to equality and in the case of Austrians this is a central pillar a lot of the time. The simple hostility you will get if you bring up the word "equality" testifies to that.

Skooma Addict

13th August 2010, 17:30

Well the fascist accusation was based on his racial views, but coming back to the notion that supporting the NAP means he is not a fascist, I don't see how you can agree that the NAP can mean whatever a person wants it to mean and then say that holding a position contrary to fascism. All he is doing is trying to reconcile the cognitive dissonance caused by saying he is a Libertarian and holding what could be regarded as fascist views.I think you would need more than racial views to accuse someone of being a fascist. A persons views on race are not sufficient to determine whether or not they are a fascist. The NAP can in reality mean whatever a person wants it to mean. However, Hoppe does not understand this fact. He believes that he knows for certain that violating a persons right to private property or self ownership is an act of aggression. Thus, he believes that fascism is incompatible with the NAP. Thus, he is not a fascist.

If you are going to say that he is not a fascist, but that he nonetheless is still linked to fascism due to his views on race, I would say that is a pretty strained link. Almost everyone could be linked to fascism in some strained way nowadays, since almost everyone is a conservative or a democrat. In order for Hoppe to have a link to fascism, it needs to be more meaningful.

I think you are trying to separate the theory from people and claim it has some sort of pure purpose separated from the people using it. Nonsense, it does the same as any other economic theory which is to attempt to interpret economics through the filter of our own biases. And I would say that Austrians are far worse for this than most. The theory is ready made to come to the conclusions those using it want and nobody attempts to use its methodology without having decided in advance what they want the answer to be.I don't even need to completely separate the theory from people to claim that it is value neutral. For example, "Mises proved that money originated from a marketable commodity" is a statement regarding theory while remaining value neutral. The policies that Mises thought the government should pursue due to this fact is another matter. It is not part of the Austrian Theory. It is not part of the Austrian Theory that the government should pursue a free market policy. Adherents of AE typically favor this due to insights provided by AE, combined with the fact that they have certain social goals. But if it were true that AE as a theory included normative claims, then why doesn't every Austrian agree on every normative issue?

I am glad you think that way is better, but I think you are missing the reason why it is needed for equality. Using fixed fines shows considerable lenience to the wealthy. In other words if they are fined it has no impact whatsoever and they go entirely unpunished. Most Libertarians strongly support such a system.I know that fixed fines generally don't harm the wealthy, but the law could still be said to be equal in my opinion, because everyone pays the same amount. This is just an example which shows that equality is not the be all end all standard to judge a law. The wealthy person does go unpunished, but that is a different issue. A poor person who does not care about his income could go unpunished as well. It is not like people with equal incomes will both feel equally punished either. One person could care a lot more than the other.

Nonetheless, as long as the law is equally enforced, I don't see how it could be said to be anti-equality. The law in no way discriminates, and everyone must suffer the same consequence for breaking the law. It is just an example of how equality is not the end game when it comes to law.

I think you are conflating fairness with equality. What I mean by that can be best illustrated by an example. Lets say there is 1 school in a community, so for all intents and purposes every child in the small community must attend that school. The school has a policy that every child will be given 1 on 1 time with a teacher to practice reading for 1 hour. Dave has dyslexia, and so 1 hour is not nearly enough time if he wants to be able to read the same books as anyone else in the class. Bobby however is a naturally skilled reader, and he is already far ahead of his age in comprehending difficult books. However, the 1 on 1 time still makes him improve even more, so it is not like the time spent with the teacher is worthless. Now, could this policy be said to be "equal?" I would say yes, it is. But is the policy fair? Well, that is up for question. Dave's mom probably thinks it is not fair, while Bob's mom thinks it is. The same idea can be applied with your traffic violation example.

Well you would need to describe to me what you regard as "humane". A society where a child's future prospects depend largely on accident of birth for instance is not very equal.

All the same I believe from experience than some-perhaps most-Libertarians are actively opposed to equality and in the case of Austrians this is a central pillar a lot of the time. The simple hostility you will get if you bring up the word "equality" testifies to that. If behind a veil of ignorance you are born at random in a given society, the higher your chances of surviving and the greater your chance for human flourishing, the more humane the society is. I think that is a pretty good way to make such a determination. So a society with an unequal distribution of wealth can be more humane than a society with an equal distribution of wealth but where groups of people are socially isolated because they are discriminated against.

I think a lot of the hostility to equality is due to the fact that libertarians see it as an excuse by others for massive taxation, a government nanny state, expansion of welfare, and other things. "Equality" like "for the children" can be used as an excuse for many draconian measures.

Thirsty Crow

13th August 2010, 18:45

I think it is a combination of reasons, none of which are black people being naturally or genetically inferior. I don't think there is any one reason.
Oh my.
The "combination of reasons/factors", or "a host of factors" cop-out.
Fantastic.

Dean

13th August 2010, 19:23

I don't even need to completely separate the theory from people to claim that it is value neutral. For example, "Mises proved that money originated from a marketable commodity" is a statement regarding theory while remaining value neutral. The policies that Mises thought the government should pursue due to this fact is another matter. It is not part of the Austrian Theory. It is not part of the Austrian Theory that the government should pursue a free market policy. Adherents of AE typically favor this due to insights provided by AE, combined with the fact that they have certain social goals. But if it were true that AE as a theory included normative claims, then why doesn't every Austrian agree on every normative issue?

Another head-in-the-sand snippet from Skooma Addict, the child who thinks that academic theoretization could never possibly be driven by politics.

One could just as readily argue that the monarchy came to the "divine right" theory of politics absent any ambition for absolutism.

M-26-7

13th August 2010, 22:15

Here is a thread from Mises.org, where one right-libertarian posts some of the very same evidence of Rothbard's racism and sexism, then expresses his disappointment with it.

Virtually every other poster in the thread jumps to Rothbard's immediate defense:

http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/11486.aspx

Demogorgon

16th August 2010, 10:29

My apologies for delaying my reply.
I think you would need more than racial views to accuse someone of being a fascist. A persons views on race are not sufficient to determine whether or not they are a fascist. The NAP can in reality mean whatever a person wants it to mean. However, Hoppe does not understand this fact. He believes that he knows for certain that violating a persons right to private property or self ownership is an act of aggression. Thus, he believes that fascism is incompatible with the NAP. Thus, he is not a fascist.

If you are going to say that he is not a fascist, but that he nonetheless is still linked to fascism due to his views on race, I would say that is a pretty strained link. Almost everyone could be linked to fascism in some strained way nowadays, since almost everyone is a conservative or a democrat. In order for Hoppe to have a link to fascism, it needs to be more meaningful.I think I was quite clumsy in what I said previously. I sounded as if I was saying he was a racist ergo he was a fascist which would be a rather silly thing to say. I was actually referring back to something earlier in the thread which was his links to some "blood and soil" Germanic groups.

I think it has to be pointed out that Austrians in general (most anyway) and Hoppe in particular seem to spend a lot of time simply giving things new names. Hoppe would say that as he opposes Government it would be ridiculous to call him a fascist, but in fact while he opposes the modern incarnation of a state, he supports something that looks suspiciously like an old fashioned state, just drawn up in private language. You have to remember that in countries where the state developed naturally, as opposed to being exported by colonial powers it emerged from a system of property. The Kings of Europe did not sit at the head of a Government as we would understand it today, they claimed the land was their property and doled out control of it to members of the aristocracy. And indeed initially they didn't even have a coherent legal system. Certainly there were generally accepted principles but the land owners (and the Church) operated their own versions of what passed for a justice system. Tithes too, the predecessor of taxes, were originally more like rent.

As an aside, you get an even more explicit example of this in Japan when the Emperor wasn't involved in this, simply being a sort of religious simple to the Japanese people. The Shogun was the one who controlled property in this way.

That interesting snippet aside, I am sure you can see where I am going with this. Hoppe effectively supports the predecessor of a state I think, or at least an idealised version of the past (where do we see that normally?), and no matter how much he chooses to frame it in a different way, this is what he does. Much like the NAP simply involves redefining the kinds of aggression you like as "retaliatory" while everyone else's aggression is "initiatory", Hoppe redefines his pseudo-feudal state as anarchy.

To go on a bit of a tangent again, this is the problem with anarcho-capitalism in general, states aren't some kind of unique metaphysical entities, they emerged from private property and if that can happen before, why can't it happen again? Indeed it happened more than once. Ancient Rome, while not exactly a modern state, did act as an organised Government with proper codified law, but this utterly broke down in much of its territory when the empire came to an end and you were left with various kings and chieftains claiming control over land and this in time evolved back into organised and centralised Government. A so-called anarcho-capitalist society would evolve back into a state too (and once again an authoritarian and deeply undemocratic one) and would almost certainly do so far quicker than in the past because modern technology speeds everything up.

I don't even need to completely separate the theory from people to claim that it is value neutral. For example, "Mises proved that money originated from a marketable commodity" is a statement regarding theory while remaining value neutral. The policies that Mises thought the government should pursue due to this fact is another matter. It is not part of the Austrian Theory. It is not part of the Austrian Theory that the government should pursue a free market policy. Adherents of AE typically favor this due to insights provided by AE, combined with the fact that they have certain social goals. But if it were true that AE as a theory included normative claims, then why doesn't every Austrian agree on every normative issue? Hang on, stating what Mises' theories were is value neutral because you are simply saying what someone else thought, saying they are true is anything but. All economic theories emerge out of political considerations. Mises' theories have starting premises that are intended to lead to right wing conclusions. Just as Marxian economics, while attempting to be scientific (and not doing too badly IMO), has premises that naturally lead to left wing conclusions, Austrian economics leads to right wing conclusions. To prove me wrong there, you'd have to find me someone who accepts Austrian economics entirely but goes on to support left wing economic policies.

I know that fixed fines generally don't harm the wealthy, but the law could still be said to be equal in my opinion, because everyone pays the same amount. This is just an example which shows that equality is not the be all end all standard to judge a law. The wealthy person does go unpunished, but that is a different issue. A poor person who does not care about his income could go unpunished as well. It is not like people with equal incomes will both feel equally punished either. One person could care a lot more than the other.

Nonetheless, as long as the law is equally enforced, I don't see how it could be said to be anti-equality. The law in no way discriminates, and everyone must suffer the same consequence for breaking the law. It is just an example of how equality is not the end game when it comes to law.

I think you are conflating fairness with equality. What I mean by that can be best illustrated by an example. Lets say there is 1 school in a community, so for all intents and purposes every child in the small community must attend that school. The school has a policy that every child will be given 1 on 1 time with a teacher to practice reading for 1 hour. Dave has dyslexia, and so 1 hour is not nearly enough time if he wants to be able to read the same books as anyone else in the class. Bobby however is a naturally skilled reader, and he is already far ahead of his age in comprehending difficult books. However, the 1 on 1 time still makes him improve even more, so it is not like the time spent with the teacher is worthless. Now, could this policy be said to be "equal?" I would say yes, it is. But is the policy fair? Well, that is up for question. Dave's mom probably thinks it is not fair, while Bob's mom thinks it is. The same idea can be applied with your traffic violation example. I think fairness and equality are totally linked, because if someone is treated unfairly, how can they be on an equal footing? To go with your example, here in Scotland, equality laws require schools to give children with special needs the extra help. We could actually use me as an example because I was a bit unusual, in terms of academic ability I was pretty advanced so I was given less one on one time with reading, maths and so on. On the other hand I do have much difficulty with handwriting, I have a disability meaning I cannot write neatly and indeed these days it was gotten much worse to the degree that it can hurt to use a pen for extended periods (I type almost everything now). That meant that when I was older I was able to have my exam papers transcribed or type my exam answers rather than handwrite them. I think in both cases I was treated equally as well as fairly. Giving me less individual tuition was totally equal because I needed less of it to be on an equal footing and allowing me to type rather than write simply put me on an equal footing again. And I know of nobody who has raised objection to either of those.

To come back to the example I gave of fines in Switzerland, equality strikes me as meaning that courts should punish equally and that means to me that a punishment no matter how equal on paper, cannot be treating people equally if it lets some go Scot free. I remember debating someone who claimed fixed fines were equal but when I pushed them a bit further they ended up giving themselves away by saying those who had earned more should have the privilege of getting away with petty crimes!

As yet another aside, your point about a poor person not caring about money does have some validity and to be honest I don't like fines much in general. I have always though Community Service is a better punishment for petty crime. Unfortunately in Scotland it is thought of as a harsher punishment than a fine and to compound matters it actually gets given in milder matters when a Sheriff thinks a person isn't well off enough to afford a fixed fine. The outcome being that poor people can be forced to do work while rich people convicted of the same offence can get off with a fine they can readily afford!

Back to the topic though, let me give you one more example of how treating people differently based on their circumstances can actually mean equality. Suppose a deaf person is up in court charged with something or another. It seems obvious to me that they should be given a sign language interpreter. However by your logic you could say that that isn't equal because they are getting something that non deaf people don't get in court. But surely that would be ridiculous?

If behind a veil of ignorance you are born at random in a given society, the higher your chances of surviving and the greater your chance for human flourishing, the more humane the society is. I think that is a pretty good way to make such a determination. So a society with an unequal distribution of wealth can be more humane than a society with an equal distribution of wealth but where groups of people are socially isolated because they are discriminated against. This kind of shows the problem with the Veil of Ignorance. Rawls thought it clearly showed that the society he favoured was most just, but everyone seems to think something a bit different is logical from behind a veil of ignorance. Suppose you are offered two choices one a society in which you have a ninety percent chance of being fantastically well off but a ten percent chance of being in crippling poverty or a society where you have a fifty percent chance of being reasonably affluent and a fifty percent chance of being poorer but still able to live comfortably, which would you choose? What would most people choose? I don't think there would be any consensus.

Back to your point though, I doubt an unequal society can ever be terribly humane as you put it, because empirical evidence suggests that inequality itself can make people worse off. The crime rate is higher, life expectancy lower and so on, plus social mobility falls. That has been a problem with Rawls for me, he seeks what he regards as best for the poor on a purely individual basis but underestimates the effect of being on a lower rung in societies pecking order.

To me on the other hand it seems obvious that from behind a veil of ignorance you would have as your first priority no absolute poverty. I think most people would agree with that. The second priority becomes more difficult however because some would say it should be that people can go as high as possible whereas for me it is no relative poverty, or at least as little as possible.

Ignoring our ideal societies, out of those that have actually existed, if I had to pick one from behind the veil of ignorance, on balance I would choose Olof Palme's Sweden. Were I rich I would have to pay vast taxes but in every other case I would enjoy an extremely high standard of living, be unlikely, barring drug addiction, to fall too far into poverty and live in a society with a lower level of inequality than most. I hasten to add that this still isn't ideal for me, simply the best out of what has existed. That is not however the sort of society you would choose, but I struggle to see how your sort of society is "humane". To make it clearer though, out of societies that have actually existed, which would you pick?

I think a lot of the hostility to equality is due to the fact that libertarians see it as an excuse by others for massive taxation, a government nanny state, expansion of welfare, and other things. "Equality" like "for the children" can be used as an excuse for many draconian measures.
Yeah well there's the problem, I see neither taxation nor welfare as "Draconian". The nanny state mainly, but that doesn't really come from Equality, Singapore which is a darling of many Libertarians is the ultimate nanny state after all.

That aside, you have given away a problem with Libertarianism again, it sees measures for equality like social welfare as Draconian...simply because they are measures for equality.

Skooma Addict

16th August 2010, 18:59

I think I was quite clumsy in what I said previously. I sounded as if I was saying he was a racist ergo he was a fascist which would be a rather silly thing to say. I was actually referring back to something earlier in the thread which was his links to some "blood and soil" Germanic groups.

I think it has to be pointed out that Austrians in general (most anyway) and Hoppe in particular seem to spend a lot of time simply giving things new names. Hoppe would say that as he opposes Government it would be ridiculous to call him a fascist, but in fact while he opposes the modern incarnation of a state, he supports something that looks suspiciously like an old fashioned state, just drawn up in private language. You have to remember that in countries where the state developed naturally, as opposed to being exported by colonial powers it emerged from a system of property. The Kings of Europe did not sit at the head of a Government as we would understand it today, they claimed the land was their property and doled out control of it to members of the aristocracy. And indeed initially they didn't even have a coherent legal system. Certainly there were generally accepted principles but the land owners (and the Church) operated their own versions of what passed for a justice system. Tithes too, the predecessor of taxes, were originally more like rent.

As an aside, you get an even more explicit example of this in Japan when the Emperor wasn't involved in this, simply being a sort of religious simple to the Japanese people. The Shogun was the one who controlled property in this way.

That interesting snippet aside, I am sure you can see where I am going with this. Hoppe effectively supports the predecessor of a state I think, or at least an idealised version of the past (where do we see that normally?), and no matter how much he chooses to frame it in a different way, this is what he does. Much like the NAP simply involves redefining the kinds of aggression you like as "retaliatory" while everyone else's aggression is "initiatory", Hoppe redefines his pseudo-feudal state as anarchy.

To go on a bit of a tangent again, this is the problem with anarcho-capitalism in general, states aren't some kind of unique metaphysical entities, they emerged from private property and if that can happen before, why can't it happen again? Indeed it happened more than once. Ancient Rome, while not exactly a modern state, did act as an organised Government with proper codified law, but this utterly broke down in much of its territory when the empire came to an end and you were left with various kings and chieftains claiming control over land and this in time evolved back into organised and centralised Government. A so-called anarcho-capitalist society would evolve back into a state too (and once again an authoritarian and deeply undemocratic one) and would almost certainly do so far quicker than in the past because modern technology speeds everything up.I don't believe I know enough about Hoppe or pre-State societies to contest what you are saying here. So I will leave it at that.

As for the supposed problem with anarcho-capitalism, whether or not I agree with you depends on how the anarcho-capitalist society is achieved. If the state simply collapses, then you would most likely get something similar to Somalia. But if the state is gradually dismantled through a series of reforms, then maybe one could maintain a stable and stateless at the same time. Also, if a group of ideologues form a small anarcho-capitalist society, then a state may not arise since the citizens all highly value statelessness.

Hang on, stating what Mises' theories were is value neutral because you are simply saying what someone else thought, saying they are true is anything but. All economic theories emerge out of political considerations. Mises' theories have starting premises that are intended to lead to right wing conclusions. Just as Marxian economics, while attempting to be scientific (and not doing too badly IMO), has premises that naturally lead to left wing conclusions, Austrian economics leads to right wing conclusions. To prove me wrong there, you'd have to find me someone who accepts Austrian economics entirely but goes on to support left wing economic policies.Austrian economics does not naturally lead to any normative conclusions. Austrians hold "right wing" positions because they value things like social cohesion and prosperity. They believe that insights from AE explain what the effects of a free market policy would be, and they view these effects as favorable. Someone who wanted to destroy society yet accepted AE could spout the opposite of a free market policy since insights provided by AE could lead him to conclude that such policies would help him reach his goals.

Austrian economics as a theory is value free. The theorizing economist has beliefs which are not value free, but that does not matter. If scientist A thinks the free market is the greatest thing ever, who cares? What matters is whether or not the theories of scientist A are objective. The two are completely separate issues.

As I said, if it were true that AE was not value free, then every single Austrian economist should hold the same normative beliefs. But they don't.

Could you provide a portion of the Austrian theory which is not wertfrei?

I think fairness and equality are totally linked, because if someone is treated unfairly, how can they be on an equal footing? To go with your example, here in Scotland, equality laws require schools to give children with special needs the extra help. We could actually use me as an example because I was a bit unusual, in terms of academic ability I was pretty advanced so I was given less one on one time with reading, maths and so on. On the other hand I do have much difficulty with handwriting, I have a disability meaning I cannot write neatly and indeed these days it was gotten much worse to the degree that it can hurt to use a pen for extended periods (I type almost everything now). That meant that when I was older I was able to have my exam papers transcribed or type my exam answers rather than handwrite them. I think in both cases I was treated equally as well as fairly. Giving me less individual tuition was totally equal because I needed less of it to be on an equal footing and allowing me to type rather than write simply put me on an equal footing again. And I know of nobody who has raised objection to either of those.

To come back to the example I gave of fines in Switzerland, equality strikes me as meaning that courts should punish equally and that means to me that a punishment no matter how equal on paper, cannot be treating people equally if it lets some go Scot free. I remember debating someone who claimed fixed fines were equal but when I pushed them a bit further they ended up giving themselves away by saying those who had earned more should have the privilege of getting away with petty crimes!

As yet another aside, your point about a poor person not caring about money does have some validity and to be honest I don't like fines much in general. I have always though Community Service is a better punishment for petty crime. Unfortunately in Scotland it is thought of as a harsher punishment than a fine and to compound matters it actually gets given in milder matters when a Sheriff thinks a person isn't well off enough to afford a fixed fine. The outcome being that poor people can be forced to do work while rich people convicted of the same offence can get off with a fine they can readily afford!

Back to the topic though, let me give you one more example of how treating people differently based on their circumstances can actually mean equality. Suppose a deaf person is up in court charged with something or another. It seems obvious to me that they should be given a sign language interpreter. However by your logic you could say that that isn't equal because they are getting something that non deaf people don't get in court. But surely that would be ridiculous?Someone who is treated unfairly could live in a society which under any reasonable definition is said to be equal. For example, a society where everyone earns an equal income and nobody is the boss of anyone else and everyone must abide by the same laws which do not favor anyone is equal. Yet a girl who has some physical disability and is socially isolated because her peers are disgusted by her is being treated unfairly. If everyone needs to be treated fairly in order for there to be equality, then equality is in fact impossible.

As for your example, I would say that the policy is pretty fair. However, I am willing to bet that there is some mom out that believes it to be unfair that her son who is naturally good at reading is given less 1 on 1 time. What would your response to her be? It would have to effectively be "Yes, it is fair." Well her reply would effectively be "No, it isn't."

Back to the Switzerland example, it almost seems like you are implicity assuming cardinal utility here. You say that equality means "punishing equally," but equal fines do not represent equal punishment according to you. So how are you going to determine when person A and person B are both punished equally for the same crime? Also, it is perfectly conceivable that a rich person would be more personally devastated by the same fixed fine than a poor person. So in that case, we would have to fine the poor person more, right?

Community service is probably a better punishment in some circumstances. But again, there is no reason to assume that anyone could determine how much community service is to be performed by a rich person and a poor person in order for them to be equally punished by the same crime.

If Bob and Bill both murder their neighbor, it would be insane to claim that Bill should receive 1 tenth the sentence of Bob because only then would they be "equally punished." On this I am sure you agree.

As for your example, I would say that it is fair but not equal. I don't think it really makes sense to say that we need the interpreter in order for there to be equality. I would say that the interpreter is needed out of fairness, and that makes a lot more sense to me.

But I do agree that in some cases treating people differently by their circumstances can mean equality in certain respects. For example, redistributing income so everyone earns the same income at the end of the month requires the government to treat everyone differently. This would lead to equality with respect to income. So in that sense only do I agree.

This kind of shows the problem with the Veil of Ignorance. Rawls thought it clearly showed that the society he favoured was most just, but everyone seems to think something a bit different is logical from behind a veil of ignorance. Suppose you are offered two choices one a society in which you have a ninety percent chance of being fantastically well off but a ten percent chance of being in crippling poverty or a society where you have a fifty percent chance of being reasonably affluent and a fifty percent chance of being poorer but still able to live comfortably, which would you choose? What would most people choose? I don't think there would be any consensus.

Back to your point though, I doubt an unequal society can ever be terribly humane as you put it, because empirical evidence suggests that inequality itself can make people worse off. The crime rate is higher, life expectancy lower and so on, plus social mobility falls. That has been a problem with Rawls for me, he seeks what he regards as best for the poor on a purely individual basis but underestimates the effect of being on a lower rung in societies pecking order.

To me on the other hand it seems obvious that from behind a veil of ignorance you would have as your first priority no absolute poverty. I think most people would agree with that. The second priority becomes more difficult however because some would say it should be that people can go as high as possible whereas for me it is no relative poverty, or at least as little as possible.

Ignoring our ideal societies, out of those that have actually existed, if I had to pick one from behind the veil of ignorance, on balance I would choose Olof Palme's Sweden. Were I rich I would have to pay vast taxes but in every other case I would enjoy an extremely high standard of living, be unlikely, barring drug addiction, to fall too far into poverty and live in a society with a lower level of inequality than most. I hasten to add that this still isn't ideal for me, simply the best out of what has existed. That is not however the sort of society you would choose, but I struggle to see how your sort of society is "humane". To make it clearer though, out of societies that have actually existed, which would you pick?I don't see the fact that everyone thinks differently behind a veil of ignorance to be a problem. I certainly don't think my beliefs behind the veil of ignorance are objectively true. It is not like my idea of a just society is more "right" than anyone else's. I am pretty sure we agree here though. I don't think there would be any consensus regarding your example either.

I am not that big of a Rawls fan either, and you are probably right that inequality itself leads to unhappiness. I mean, who wants to be at the very bottom of the "social latter?" I personally would rather have less money and be more equal with my fellow man than have more money and remain at the lower rung of the pecking order (only to an extent though).

Behind the veil of ignorance I would not really have any first priority. I would look at it in a purely holistic nature. For example, I would prefer a society where .0000000000000000001% of the population is in absolute poverty, but whether there are no other noticeable social or economic problems over a society with no absolute poverty but where people with disabilities are frowned upon and ignored by the general population.

Behind a veil of ignorance I would most likely choose modern Switzerland. As far as I know everyone there knows multiple languages, and there are a lot of nice cities and things to do for he poor and the rich.

Yeah well there's the problem, I see neither taxation nor welfare as "Draconian". The nanny state mainly, but that doesn't really come from Equality, Singapore which is a darling of many Libertarians is the ultimate nanny state after all.

That aside, you have given away a problem with Libertarianism again, it sees measures for equality like social welfare as Draconian...simply because they are measures for equality. "For equality" and "for the children" is used to justify a lot more than welfare and taxation. "For the children" is often an excuse to go to war by the chicken-hawks for example.

Dean

17th August 2010, 04:00

Austrian economics as a theory is value free. The theorizing economist has beliefs which are not value free, but that does not matter. If scientist A thinks the free market is the greatest thing ever, who cares? What matters is whether or not the theories of scientist A are objective. The two are completely separate issues.

As I said, if it were true that AE was not value free, then every single Austrian economist should hold the same normative beliefs. But they don't.
This is a complete straw man. As Demo pointed out, Marxist economics are not value free - yet there are not only different interpretations and currents of Marxism, but Marx himself modified his theories - and some reject the changes, some don't.

In fact, I don't think there is an ideology in the world - save a few very narrow ones - which involve consistent "normative beliefs." But no ideology, by nature of its inevitable devolution into different tendencies, excludes the founder from political prejudice.

Your argument, that "different normative beliefs" prove the "value-free" character of a given ideology assumes one or more of the following:
-that future adherents to a theory can define the "value" character of the theory
-that all adherents follow the same logical paradigm/system/conclusions (that is to say, the Austrian theory of the business cycle can have disparate interpretations, even though it may have been driven by a particular motive at its birth)

Its simply preposterous to claim that the manifestation of a theoretical base, decades since its inception, can dictate what the founding characteristics were. It's similar to saying that the internet wasn't developed as a military-tactical system since it has recently been responsible for the compromise of those very power structures.

Furthermore, Demogorgon has rather comprehensively (and with much patience) described the material relationship between landed and feudal conceptualizations of rights, which really indicates how totalitarian are systems of traded private property. To this, you have unsurprisingly thrown your hands up in defeat - you "don't know enough" about feudalism, so that particular discussion - as well as its similarity to contemporary propertarian ideology - is to be abandoned.

Skooma Addict

18th August 2010, 02:04

This is a complete straw man.
Where is the straw man? Do you know what a straw man is?

As Demo pointed out, Marxist economics are not value free - yet there are not only different interpretations and currents of Marxism, but Marx himself modified his theories - and some reject the changes, some don't.I will let you guys decide whether or not Marxist economic theory is value free. However, if it is not, that is very bad news for Marxists, since value free economic theories are more objective. One who disagrees with Marxist values can then legitimately reject Marxist economic theory. Your theory is only "true" to people who agree with your values.

In fact, I don't think there is an ideology in the world - save a few very narrow ones - which involve consistent "normative beliefs." But no ideology, by nature of its inevitable devolution into different tendencies, excludes the founder from political prejudice. I am talking about Austrian economic theory. Not the Austro-libertarians who readily admit that their libertarian beliefs are due to normative principles which are in no way derived from Austrian economic theory. You are confusing ideology with theory.

Your argument, that "different normative beliefs" prove the "value-free" character of a given ideology assumes one or more of the following:
-that future adherents to a theory can define the "value" character of the theory
-that all adherents follow the same logical paradigm/system/conclusions (that is to say, the Austrian theory of the business cycle can have disparate interpretations, even though it may have been driven by a particular motive at its birth)Further evidence that you do not know what a straw man argument is, since you just presented one.

Its simply preposterous to claim that the manifestation of a theoretical base, decades since its inception, can dictate what the founding characteristics were. It's similar to saying that the internet wasn't developed as a military-tactical system since it has recently been responsible for the compromise of those very power structures.Idk what this means. Can't understand it.

Furthermore, Demogorgon has rather comprehensively (and with much patience) described the material relationship between landed and feudal conceptualizations of rights, which really indicates how totalitarian are systems of traded private property. To this, you have unsurprisingly thrown your hands up in defeat - you "don't know enough" about feudalism, so that particular discussion - as well as its similarity to contemporary propertarian ideology - is to be abandoned.

It does not indicate how private property is totalitarian. Private property is what allows for civilization.

Dean

18th August 2010, 13:10

Where is the straw man? Do you know what a straw man is?
Yes, and your argument that Austrian economics can't be marred by its ideological prejudice due to a lack of uniformity in its adherents is a strawman. You're transforming the argument into some narrow oint that is easily refuted (since, as I've pointed out, few to no ideologies have uniformity in their adherents).

I will let you guys decide whether or not Marxist economic theory is value free. However, if it is not, that is very bad news for Marxists, since value free economic theories are more objective. One who disagrees with Marxist values can then legitimately reject Marxist economic theory. Your theory is only "true" to people who agree with your values.

I am talking about Austrian economic theory. Not the Austro-libertarians who readily admit that their libertarian beliefs are due to normative principles which are in no way derived from Austrian economic theory. You are confusing ideology with theory.
There is no clear demarcation between ideology and theory, especially when we are discussing issues that have real social and political consequences. It says tons about you that you even think the two can be separated.

Further evidence that you do not know what a straw man argument is, since you just presented one.

Idk what this means. Can't understand it.
Apparently, you dont understand the logical consequences of your own arguments (i.e. that the above "strawman" is somehow not true when I'm merely rephrasing your "every single Austrian economist should hold the same normative beliefs") or your lack of comprehension for the last paragraph. I'll rephrase it for you though:

It is ridiculous to allow the adherents of an ideology 50 years later to dictate whether or not ideological prejudice hampered someone's theoretization just because they purport to follow them.

It does not indicate how private property is totalitarian. Private property is what allows for civilization.
Quit being so smug. You refuse to critically assess any power structures. Quit parroting liberal talking points like "it allows for civilization." If I made the same claim about social activity you'd demand a series of research and studies indicating as such. But you have the luxury of presenting these random political prejudices without even needing to prove them to yourself or its relevance to the topic at hand (for instance: what is it about "allowing for civilization" that excludes a given phenomenon from being totalitarian? Its just childish morality plays).

[Edited to remove insults :wub:]

Skooma Addict

18th August 2010, 16:31

Yes, and your argument that Austrian economics can't be marred by its ideological prejudice due to a lack of uniformity in its adherents is a strawman. You're transforming the argument into some narrow oint that is easily refuted (since, as I've pointed out, few to no ideologies have uniformity in their adherents).Austrian economics is not an ideology. Austrian economists adhere to many different ideologies (and there is not uniformity within these ideologies, as you said). Why don't you go ahead and present a normative claim that is part of the Austrian theory.

There is no clear demarcation between ideology and theory, especially when we are discussing issues that have real social and political consequences. It says tons about you that you even think the two can be separated.
Austrian economics is a theory. Austro-libertarianism is an ideology. The rest of us should have to suffer because you don't know enough about either to tell the difference. AE is wertfrei, and Austro-libertarianism is not.

I am glad that you readily admit that Marxist economics is not value free. Bad news for Marxist economics if that is true.

It is ridiculous to allow the adherents of an ideology 50 years later to dictate whether or not ideological prejudice hampered someone's theoretization just because they purport to follow them.

Nobody is making any such assertion. A persons theorization can be hampered for many reasons. A persons theorization can be hampered because a love one died.

Quit being so smug. You refuse to critically assess any power structures. Quit parroting liberal talking points like "it allows for civilization." If I made the same claim about social activity you'd demand a series of research and studies indicating as such. But you have the luxury of presenting these random political prejudices without even needing to prove them to yourself or its relevance to the topic at hand (for instance: what is it about "allowing for civilization" that excludes a given phenomenon from being totalitarian? Its just childish morality plays).
Without private property and the market which naturally and spontaneously came into being, how do you propose economic coordination given the fact that knowledge is mostly tacit and either extremely difficult or impossible to transfer verbally?

[Edited to remove insults :wub:] Darn. I usually look forward you the usual barrage of uncreative and repetitive insults.

Dimentio

18th August 2010, 17:47

No social science is value free.

There is an enormous difference between claiming that poor people are poor because they in general have lower education, and claiming that poor people have low education because they are poor. The first claim is putting the responsibility on the shoulders of those who are poor, while the second claim is putting it on society.

Also such a thing as social problems in themselves. If you consider it natural that people should live in shacks with no running water, snort glue to keep hunger away and sell sexual favours to wealthy German tourists, well, then such things are simply not seen as social problems if you have the decision power.

Dean

18th August 2010, 17:59

Austrian economics is not an ideology. Austrian economists adhere to many different ideologies (and there is not uniformity within these ideologies, as you said). Why don't you go ahead and present a normative claim that is part of the Austrian theory.

Austrian economics is a theory. Austro-libertarianism is an ideology. The rest of us should have to suffer because you don't know enough about either to tell the difference. AE is wertfrei, and Austro-libertarianism is not.
Simply repeating the argument wont make it so.

Nobody is making any such assertion. A persons theorization can be hampered for many reasons. A persons theorization can be hampered because a love one died.
You are claiming that Austrian economics are not influenced by value judgments. I don't see how this can ever be the case with human intellectual activity. I think its a dogmatic insanity that you keep promoting this idea. At least I have the courage to admit that the theories I adhere to are influenced by my own value judgments - this is true for everyone. When you read an article about the consequences of government spending, I guarantee that you are more inclined to consider the negative consequences more weighty, and you'll be more compelled to consider the ambiguous ones more negative.

Why should Austrian economics be any different?

Without private property and the market which naturally and spontaneously came into being, how do you propose economic coordination given the fact that knowledge is mostly tacit and either extremely difficult or impossible to transfer verbally?
Again with the obfuscation. How do you propose that this tangent will refute the totalitarian character of private property?

Skooma Addict

18th August 2010, 18:29

Simply repeating the argument wont make it so.I repeated it before and ill repeat it again.

Why don't you go ahead and present a normative claim that is part of the Austrian theory. Or are you just biding your time while you search through the internet in vain?

You are claiming that Austrian economics are not influenced by value judgments. I don't see how this can ever be the case with human intellectual activity.So neither physics, chemistry, mathematics or biology are value free, right?

Again with the obfuscation. How do you propose that this tangent will refute the totalitarian character of private property?
What totalitarian character of private property? But if you can't tell me how we could maintain civilization without private property, I am not sure how you could legitimately oppose it.

Dean

18th August 2010, 18:53

I repeated it before and ill repeat it again.

Why don't you go ahead and present a normative claim that is part of the Austrian theory. Or are you just biding your time while you search through the internet in vain?
Normative claims aren't required for a theory to be held back by values. Where on earth do you get this shit from?

So neither physics, chemistry, mathematics or biology are value free, right?
Technically no, but we are discussing a field which is closely related to human and social values (economics) so its prejudice is a lot more damaging.

Try to tell me that Einstein's study of Nuclear physics was value-free, and I'll laugh in your face. Scientists and theorists of all stripes are driven by certain values, which influences their theoretization.

What totalitarian character of private property?
That mentioned in reference to the rise of Feudalism a number of posts back, which you threw your hands up at as "something you don't know much about." Not surprising.

But if you can't tell me how we could maintain civilization without private property, I am not sure how you could legitimately oppose it.
Communal social organization.

Skooma Addict

18th August 2010, 19:02

Normative claims aren't required for a theory to be held back by values. Where on earth do you get this shit from?

Technically no, but we are discussing a field which is closely related to human and social values (economics) so its prejudice is a lot more damaging.

Try to tell me that Einstein's study of Nuclear physics was value-free, and I'll laugh in your face. Scientists and theorists of all stripes are driven by certain values, which influences their theoretization.

I have a feeling we are making two different points. AE, as a theory is value free. In order to refute this, you must present a portion of the Austrian theory that is not value free.

I know scientists are driven by values. For example many scientists value "truth." But that is a completely different claim. I do not care what a persons values are as long as they do not incorporate those values into theories which they claim to be factual or scientific.

Communal social organization.

Unless you can expand on this, it is only fair that the words "Communal social organization" be replaced with "I don't know."

Kayser_Soso

18th August 2010, 19:54

Can you guys stay on topic?

Revolution starts with U

18th August 2010, 20:04

The whole idea of AE is built on the concept that "the market will correct itself."
How is that value-free?
... I guess it is value free, no value for human life.. at all....
How many people must starve before the market "corrects itself."
unfalsifiable theories can hardly be called theories at all

Dean

18th August 2010, 21:33

I have a feeling we are making two different points. AE, as a theory is value free. In order to refute this, you must present a portion of the Austrian theory that is not value free.

I know scientists are driven by values. For example many scientists value "truth." But that is a completely different claim. I do not care what a persons values are as long as they do not incorporate those values into theories which they claim to be factual or scientific.
In fact, the very basis of Austrian economics holds certain values - that statistics and econometrics should not be trusted, and rather that "axioms" should be assumed in order to deduce facts. I shouldn't have to go into why such a narrow approach is dangerous, nor why prejudice against statistical and econometric data is a value judgment.

Unless you can expand on this, it is only fair that the words "Communal social organization" be replaced with "I don't know."
We both know that I support devolving democratic systems as opposed to hierarchical systems of economic management. It doesn't need to be explored to either prove or disprove the facts of totalitarianism in private property relations. You're still distancing yourself from the point.

Demogorgon

18th August 2010, 22:52

I don't believe I know enough about Hoppe or pre-State societies to contest what you are saying here. So I will leave it at that.

As for the supposed problem with anarcho-capitalism, whether or not I agree with you depends on how the anarcho-capitalist society is achieved. If the state simply collapses, then you would most likely get something similar to Somalia. But if the state is gradually dismantled through a series of reforms, then maybe one could maintain a stable and stateless at the same time. Also, if a group of ideologues form a small anarcho-capitalist society, then a state may not arise since the citizens all highly value statelessness. Well a small group of ideologues does not a society make. If they want to go off and live like that then I have no objection, though I have to say it probably won't work because that sort of thing never does. I am reminded of that attempt in Texas I think it was, to set up a community based on the values of Ron Paul. The very first thing they did was pool the cost of electricity to be paid for collectively. They found it was the only financially viable model.

As for your notion of the state gradually being taken apart. How would that work? For whose benefit would it be? How would they enforce it? What makes you think that would be stable?

Austrian economics does not naturally lead to any normative conclusions. Austrians hold "right wing" positions because they value things like social cohesion and prosperity. They believe that insights from AE explain what the effects of a free market policy would be, and they view these effects as favorable. Someone who wanted to destroy society yet accepted AE could spout the opposite of a free market policy since insights provided by AE could lead him to conclude that such policies would help him reach his goals.

Austrian economics as a theory is value free. The theorizing economist has beliefs which are not value free, but that does not matter. If scientist A thinks the free market is the greatest thing ever, who cares? What matters is whether or not the theories of scientist A are objective. The two are completely separate issues.

As I said, if it were true that AE was not value free, then every single Austrian economist should hold the same normative beliefs. But they don't.

Could you provide a portion of the Austrian theory which is not wertfrei?

Again not one word of it is value free because the theorists, especially since Mises did not come up with these ideas in a vacuum. They created their theory to fit with the conclusions they wanted to come to. If it were an objective, value free system then people across the political spectrum would accept it, yet it is absolutely and exclusively held to by those on the right looking for a theory to rationalise their views. The fact that there is not complete harmony on every question of policy is besides the point. Find me any ideology at all with no internal disagreement.

Like I say, all economic theories have some degree of political bias in them because they are theories about society and we don't get to stand apart from society and look at it as a dispassionate observer. As it happens however, Austrian economics actually has a larger degree of political bias than most. You can see that in the way that while different economic theories all have certain common points, including most heterodox ones, Austrian Economics stands completely apart when it is at its most extreme rejecting empiricism and drawing on its own unique axioms. It does this because those seeking to come to the conclusions it offers have over time drawn up a theory to achieve that.

That is not to say however that it was cynical or even deliberate, I certainly do not intend to be so rude as to question your sincerity, it is just the way it worked out over time. All ideologies are at risk of this of course and for that reason I try to constantly guard against my thinking going like that and it really is a constant effort because the temptation to do it is so strong. There are a lot of people here, both restricted and not restricted who fail to do it though.

Anyway as I say, Austrian Economics is not value free, the fact that it claims it is is just another flaw in the theory. I notice incidentally that certain Austrians are rather good at deceiving themselves as to the nature of their theories. We used to have a member on here called Tungsten, a really quite odious individual in general I have to say, but anyway he kept trying to defend Austrian Economics by claiming that it was the only school of economics taken seriously these days. When I told him that it was a fringe theory and that it was rarely taught in Universities and its proponents had difficulty getting published often in economic journals he simply did not believe me. As you might imagine this made me doubt his claims to have made a study of economics but it also acted as a reminder to me of how much people can be blinded by their own views. It also indicated that somebody must have provided him with false information to make their case stronger, but that is another story.

Someone who is treated unfairly could live in a society which under any reasonable definition is said to be equal. For example, a society where everyone earns an equal income and nobody is the boss of anyone else and everyone must abide by the same laws which do not favor anyone is equal. Yet a girl who has some physical disability and is socially isolated because her peers are disgusted by her is being treated unfairly. If everyone needs to be treated fairly in order for there to be equality, then equality is in fact impossible. Only if you take only absolutely perfect equality as equality at all. I am not suggesting we can simply have a utopia where everything is perfect. What I am saying is that a society where people are treated a s fairly as possible will other things being equal as equal as possible.

As for your example, I would say that the policy is pretty fair. However, I am willing to bet that there is some mom out that believes it to be unfair that her son who is naturally good at reading is given less 1 on 1 time. What would your response to her be? It would have to effectively be "Yes, it is fair." Well her reply would effectively be "No, it isn't." Well you may be surprised at this, but parents who think their little darlings deserve more one on one time almost never bring fairness into it. Personally I am lucky enough to teach adults so I don't have to deal with pushy parents though you do get students who expect you to give them far more time than you can reasonably give while teaching others so I do appreciate what dealing with these parents can be like.

Anyway the parents who object to their "uniquely gifted" child not being given the time being given to help less able children never try to use fairness in their argument as they presumably know that it is a non starter. They instead try to claim their child deserves special treatment for their "special talent" to bloom or whatever.

Like I say, I am lucky because I teach adults who don't speak much English, so if I do get unreasonable demands, I can head them off very easily, but amongst school teachers parents who demand the sort of thing you refer to are the absolute bane of their existence, but they will likely tell you, as I say, that the parents aren't claiming fairness.

Back to the Switzerland example, it almost seems like you are implicity assuming cardinal utility here. You say that equality means "punishing equally," but equal fines do not represent equal punishment according to you. So how are you going to determine when person A and person B are both punished equally for the same crime? Also, it is perfectly conceivable that a rich person would be more personally devastated by the same fixed fine than a poor person. So in that case, we would have to fine the poor person more, right?

Community service is probably a better punishment in some circumstances. But again, there is no reason to assume that anyone could determine how much community service is to be performed by a rich person and a poor person in order for them to be equally punished by the same crime.

If Bob and Bill both murder their neighbor, it would be insane to claim that Bill should receive 1 tenth the sentence of Bob because only then would they be "equally punished." On this I am sure you agree. [quote]No, but you can't have perfect equality as I say, you just have to do your best. Of course even with prison sentences, an equal society will sometimes give different sentences for the same crime based upon the perpetrators circumstances. A child for instance will be treated more leniently than an adult and also courts, certainly in this country, are less keen to jail mothers of infant children. I don't see how that is an unequal policy. It simply takes circumstances into effect to try and make things more equal overall. There are limits to how far you can go though. To give a murderer a very short sentence under almost any circumstance would likely be unacceptable to most people, but as I say perfect solutions are not easy.
[quote]
As for your example, I would say that it is fair but not equal. I don't think it really makes sense to say that we need the interpreter in order for there to be equality. I would say that the interpreter is needed out of fairness, and that makes a lot more sense to me. No, I think it is a case of equality, because if someone cannot participate in their trial and give their side of the story, how can they have enjoyed the fair trial that their fellows are in theory entitled to?

t see the fact that everyone thinks differently behind a veil of ignorance to be a problem. I certainly don't think my beliefs behind the veil of ignorance are objectively true. It is not like my idea of a just society is more "right" than anyone else's. I am pretty sure we agree here though. I don't think there would be any consensus regarding your example either. What I mean is the Rawlsian idea that the "just society" manifests itself behind the veil of ignorance is wrong, but that is a discussion for another thread.

Behind the veil of ignorance I would not really have any first priority. I would look at it in a purely holistic nature. For example, I would prefer a society where .0000000000000000001% of the population is in absolute poverty, but whether there are no other noticeable social or economic problems over a society with no absolute poverty but where people with disabilities are frowned upon and ignored by the general population.Yeah that's true, I should have meant the primary economic criteria would have been no absolute poverty. To prioritise that to the exclusion of things like "no genocide" would be less than wise.

Behind a veil of ignorance I would most likely choose modern Switzerland. As far as I know everyone there knows multiple languages, and there are a lot of nice cities and things to do for he poor and the rich.That kind of surprises me given your political outlook though I will have to disappoint you by telling you that the country isn't as multi-lingual as you think. Young Swiss people are increasingly using English as a common language rather than learning each others languages and the schools now make English compulsory rather than other Swiss languages.

"For equality" and "for the children" is used to justify a lot more than welfare and taxation. "For the children" is often an excuse to go to war by the chicken-hawks for example.
Yes, we all know what "for the children" means, but you are dodging the point. Libertarians in general and Austrians in particular instinctively react badly to "equality" and the reason is usually that they are thinking of social welfare provisions, or sometimes even of political democracy.

Skooma Addict

19th August 2010, 05:10

In fact, the very basis of Austrian economics holds certain values - that statistics and econometrics should not be trusted, and rather that "axioms" should be assumed in order to deduce facts.

This is completely false. Austrian economists use statistics all the time. Econometrics when used properly, can be used to support a theory.

But this sentence also makes no sense. "Austrian Economics" does not say "statistics can't be trusted." Some Austrian economists claim that statistics can't be trusted in certain situations.

However, until you provide a normative claim that is part of the Austrian theory, you are wrong.

We both know that I support devolving democratic systems as opposed to hierarchical systems of economic management. It doesn't need to be explored to either prove or disprove the facts of totalitarianism in private property relations. You're still distancing yourself from the point.

You simply asserted that Private property was totalitarian. I do not take you assertion as a point which I need to refute. How feudalism supports you point is for you to elaborate on, since frankly I have no idea.

Also, please explain how "devolving democratic systems" will allow for economic coordination given the fact that knowledge is mostly tacit and either extremely difficult or impossible to transfer verbally?

Given that there is no private property, I want to know how this would be achieved.

Revolution starts with U

19th August 2010, 05:50

This is completely false. Austrian economists use statistics all the time.
Yes, they do. Until you bring up some statistic that counters their claims, then they always fall back on the "you cant objectively verify praxeology." Their whole system is a self-reciprocating joke. I know this, cause I spend a lot of time on the Mises forums.
Some Austrian economists claim that statistics can't be trusted in certain situations.
namely, the ones that disprove their neat little "theory"
However, until you provide a normative claim that is part of the Austrian theory, you are wrong
Another gem of the AE community, "you obviously dont understand AE."
I hardly consider AE a theory at all. Just an exercise in intellectual masturbation. ;)

Skooma Addict

19th August 2010, 05:58

I had a more in depth reply typed out, but I lost it....and this happened twice. So this is going to have to do.

As for your notion of the state gradually being taken apart. How would that work? For whose benefit would it be? How would they enforce it? What makes you think that would be stable?Gradual privatization of different sectors of the economy. This is superior to revolution since it does not fall victim to Hayekian knowledge problems.

Again not one word of it is value free because the theorists, especially since Mises did not come up with these ideas in a vacuum. They created their theory to fit with the conclusions they wanted to come to. If it were an objective, value free system then people across the political spectrum would accept it, yet it is absolutely and exclusively held to by those on the right looking for a theory to rationalise their views. The fact that there is not complete harmony on every question of policy is besides the point. Find me any ideology at all with no internal disagreement.

Like I say, all economic theories have some degree of political bias in them because they are theories about society and we don't get to stand apart from society and look at it as a dispassionate observer. As it happens however, Austrian economics actually has a larger degree of political bias than most. You can see that in the way that while different economic theories all have certain common points, including most heterodox ones, Austrian Economics stands completely apart when it is at its most extreme rejecting empiricism and drawing on its own unique axioms. It does this because those seeking to come to the conclusions it offers have over time drawn up a theory to achieve that.

That is not to say however that it was cynical or even deliberate, I certainly do not intend to be so rude as to question your sincerity, it is just the way it worked out over time. All ideologies are at risk of this of course and for that reason I try to constantly guard against my thinking going like that and it really is a constant effort because the temptation to do it is so strong. There are a lot of people here, both restricted and not restricted who fail to do it though.

Anyway as I say, Austrian Economics is not value free, the fact that it claims it is is just another flaw in the theory. I notice incidentally that certain Austrians are rather good at deceiving themselves as to the nature of their theories. We used to have a member on here called Tungsten, a really quite odious individual in general I have to say, but anyway he kept trying to defend Austrian Economics by claiming that it was the only school of economics taken seriously these days. When I told him that it was a fringe theory and that it was rarely taught in Universities and its proponents had difficulty getting published often in economic journals he simply did not believe me. As you might imagine this made me doubt his claims to have made a study of economics but it also acted as a reminder to me of how much people can be blinded by their own views. It also indicated that somebody must have provided him with false information to make their case stronger, but that is another story.I do not care about the values of the theorists themselves. What matters is the actual economic theory. "Capital is heterogeneous" is a value free claim in AE. An example of a claim that is not value free would be "God is real and you should follow his orders."

It is also not true that all Austrians are right wing. Take Ropke for example. Burczak was also heavily influenced by Hayek.

Austrain economics is not an ideology, and so my inability to find an ideology with no internal disagreement is not a point in anyones favor. However, there is internal disagreement among Austrians on wertfrei portions of the theory.

Unless you can specifically cite a portion of Austrian theory which contains a normative claim, then I don't see why anyone ought to accept your claims. I can already tell you however that you will not be able to provide an example, since none exist.

Well you may be surprised at this, but parents who think their little darlings deserve more one on one time almost never bring fairness into it. Personally I am lucky enough to teach adults so I don't have to deal with pushy parents though you do get students who expect you to give them far more time than you can reasonably give while teaching others so I do appreciate what dealing with these parents can be like.

Anyway the parents who object to their "uniquely gifted" child not being given the time being given to help less able children never try to use fairness in their argument as they presumably know that it is a non starter. They instead try to claim their child deserves special treatment for their "special talent" to bloom or whatever.

Like I say, I am lucky because I teach adults who don't speak much English, so if I do get unreasonable demands, I can head them off very easily, but amongst school teachers parents who demand the sort of thing you refer to are the absolute bane of their existence, but they will likely tell you, as I say, that the parents aren't claiming fairness.Well what if the parent does? I am pretty sure there is a parent out there somewhere in the world which would make such a claim. The policy is equal, but whether or not it is fair depends on the person. But the policy is certainly equal.

No, but you can't have perfect equality as I say, you just have to do your best. Of course even with prison sentences, an equal society will sometimes give different sentences for the same crime based upon the perpetrators circumstances. A child for instance will be treated more leniently than an adult and also courts, certainly in this country, are less keen to jail mothers of infant children. I don't see how that is an unequal policy. It simply takes circumstances into effect to try and make things more equal overall. There are limits to how far you can go though. To give a murderer a very short sentence under almost any circumstance would likely be unacceptable to most people, but as I say perfect solutions are not easy.As long as you agree that "punishing equally" (in anything besides the formal sense) does not make sense given that utility is ordinal, then we agree on the most important point.

No, I think it is a case of equality, because if someone cannot participate in their trial and give their side of the story, how can they have enjoyed the fair trial that their fellows are in theory entitled to?I agree, I think it is needed for a fair trial. However it is not needed for an "equal" trial (whatever that actually means).

That kind of surprises me given your political outlook though I will have to disappoint you by telling you that the country isn't as multi-lingual as you think. Young Swiss people are increasingly using English as a common language rather than learning each others languages and the schools now make English compulsory rather than other Swiss languages.That is disappointing.

Skooma Addict

19th August 2010, 06:01

Revolution starts with U

19th August 2010, 06:36

Austrian School principles advocate strict adherence to methodological individualism – analyzing human action exclusively from the perspective of an individual agent.
I.E. the foundation of praxeology, that collectives dont act. Which is a value statement, and completely false (in the sense that no, collectives dont act, but people do act in collectives).
Austrian economists also argue that mathematical models and statistics are an unreliable means of analyzing and testing economic theory
Just threw that in there to reinforce my statement that they only discount statistics and math when it invalidates their cute little exercise in hegemony.
and advocate a laissez faire approach to the economy. They advocate the strict enforcement of voluntary contractual agreements between economic agents, and hold that commercial transactions should be subject to the smallest possible imposition of coercive forces. In particular, they argue for an extremely limited role for government and the smallest possible amount of government money production (advocating instead a commodity money system).
All value free, correct?
The Austrian praxeological method is based on the heavy use of logical deduction from what they assert to be undeniable, self-evident axioms or irrefutable facts about human existence.
Oh ya, and you cant forget the gem the whole theory is based on;
Every action is aimed at improving the actor's subjective well-being above what it otherwise would have been
Ya... value free?
I could go on, but... arguing against AE is like arguing against the Bible.... a self-reciprocating exercise in intellectual masturbation. ;)

Skooma Addict

19th August 2010, 15:47

Austrian School principles advocate strict adherence to methodological individualism – analyzing human action exclusively from the perspective of an individual agent.
I.E. the foundation of praxeology, that collectives dont act. Which is a value statement, and completely false (in the sense that no, collectives dont act, but people do act in collectives).

Austrian economists also argue that mathematical models and statistics are an unreliable means of analyzing and testing economic theory
Just threw that in there to reinforce my statement that they only discount statistics and math when it invalidates their cute little exercise in hegemony.
and advocate a laissez faire approach to the economy. They advocate the strict enforcement of voluntary contractual agreements between economic agents, and hold that commercial transactions should be subject to the smallest possible imposition of coercive forces. In particular, they argue for an extremely limited role for government and the smallest possible amount of government money production (advocating instead a commodity money system).
All value free, correct?
The Austrian praxeological method is based on the heavy use of logical deduction from what they assert to be undeniable, self-evident axioms or irrefutable facts about human existence.
Oh ya, and you cant forget the gem the whole theory is based on;
Every action is aimed at improving the actor's subjective well-being above what it otherwise would have been
Ya... value free?
I could go on, but... arguing against AE is like arguing against the Bible.... a self-reciprocating exercise in intellectual masturbation. ;)

You need to do two things...

1. have at least a basic understanding of what it is you are talking about. For example, the claim that collectives don't act is not a value statement. The fact that Austrian economists make policy recommendations (which you are completely overgeneralizing) does not mean Austrain theory is not value free. You should also know that there were Austrians before praxeology, and there were Austrians such as Hayek and Lachmann after praxeology. But yes, praxeology is value free. But please, go on and make yourself look more like an idiot.

2. Learn how to post.

Revolution starts with U

19th August 2010, 18:05

Another gem of the AE community; say absolutely nothing in really big words, and call people stupid.
I mean, if you can so conveniently seperate the "theory" (what theory, its a hypothesis. Theorys require data and expirimentation) from the policy proposals its proponents pose (haha, poetry) than I guess all economic theories are value free. What a bunch of malarky (as i have previously stated, intellectual masturbation. You want to fell like you're engaging in intellectual discourse, but really your just pleasuring yourself with big words.)
Every action is aimed at improving the actor's subjective well-being above what it otherwise would have been
You tell me how that is a value free statement... perhaps I just misunderstand what this "value free" means (or it is just another tool of AE, to say something absolutely meaningless so noone can pin you down).
You are saying that "government can only get in the way of the market" is not part of the theory. It cant be, cuz it sure sounds like a value statement to me.
Or.. and I find this the most likely.. the theory is intentionally slippery so as to not be pinned down, so that when someone criticizes it, you can fall back on your favorite punch-line "you obviously dont understand AE."
The whole system has repeatedly been shown in history to be false.
AE is all about business hegemony. A meritrocracy. Even Greenspan considered himself an austrian... and that says a lot.

Dean

19th August 2010, 18:13

You need to do two things...

1. have at least a basic understanding of what it is you are talking about. For example, the claim that collectives don't act is not a value statement. The fact that Austrian economists make policy recommendations (which you are completely overgeneralizing) does not mean Austrain theory is not value free. You should also know that there were Austrians before praxeology, and there were Austrians such as Hayek and Lachmann after praxeology. But yes, praxeology is value free. But please, go on and make yourself look more like an idiot.

2. Learn how to post.
You're doing nothing more than playing word games. By your logic, every partisan theorization is value-free, since the theory is used to prop up the value argument. Marxism is value free under your definition, as are Ayn Rand's, Freud's, and the economic platforms of both US political parties.

Its ludicrous and does nothing to support the notion that Austrian economics is not prejudiced, which has been the whole point of the discussion which you've consistently distanced yourself from in this feeble enterprise.

Skooma Addict

19th August 2010, 19:41

Another gem of the AE community; say absolutely nothing in really big words, and call people stupid.

I am sorry, but the claims you are making are very stupid. I would be more polite, however you make extremely dogmatic claims such as...

"I could go on, but... arguing against AE is like arguing against the Bible.... a self-reciprocating exercise in intellectual masturbation. ;)"

Every action is aimed at improving the actor's subjective well-being above what it otherwise would have been
You tell me how that is a value free statement... perhaps I just misunderstand what this "value free" means (or it is just another tool of AE, to say something absolutely meaningless so noone can pin you down).

You don't understand what a value free statement means. The statement you presented is value free. I hope you don't argue against the bible as poorly as you argue against AE.

You are saying that "government can only get in the way of the market" is not part of the theory. It cant be, cuz it sure sounds like a value statement to me.

Effects which the government can have on the market can remain value free. For example, "creating a binding price floor on wages will hamper employment" is a value free claim.

AE is all about business hegemony. A meritrocracy. Even Greenspan considered himself an austrian... and that says a lot.

Darn! You found out! The jig is up! Its true, the capitalists all get together in Singapore and formed a secret plot to brainwash the population into believing AE!

Skooma Addict

19th August 2010, 19:47

You're doing nothing more than playing word games. By your logic, every partisan theorization is value-free, since the theory is used to prop up the value argument. Marxism is value free under your definition, as are Ayn Rand's, Freud's, and the economic platforms of both US political parties.Objectivism is not value free as far as I am aware. Idk much about Freuds theories, so idk.

Its ludicrous and does nothing to support the notion that Austrian economics is not prejudiced, which has been the whole point of the discussion which you've consistently distanced yourself from in this feeble enterprise. Until you actually present evidence for your claim ( i.e. present a portion of AE that is not value free), then you are wrong. I have presented many examples of value free portions of Austrian theory. You have not presented a single portion of Austrian theory to support your claim.

Dean

19th August 2010, 21:03

Until you actually present evidence for your claim ( i.e. present a portion of AE that is not value free), then you are wrong. I have presented many examples of value free portions of Austrian theory. You have not presented a single portion of Austrian theory to support your claim.
We've gone over this before. Your reductionist approach runs counter to the fact that we don't need to find "non-value-free" examples to assert the obviously prejudiced character of Austrian theory, a point which has been expanded on in numerous posts, points which you've refused to respond to. As far as I'm concerned, you are aware of the irresponsible political prejudice of the Austrian school and you willingly endorse said prejudices.

You have also failed to respond to the point that "finding that all Austrians share the same stance" is in no way, shape or form a vindication of the school in terms of its prejudices.

Skooma Addict

19th August 2010, 21:23

We've gone over this before. Your reductionist approach runs counter to the fact that we don't need to find "non-value-free" examples to assert the obviously prejudiced character of Austrian theory, a point which has been expanded on in numerous posts, points which you've refused to respond to. As far as I'm concerned, you are aware of the irresponsible political prejudice of the Austrian school and you willingly endorse said prejudices.So in other words, you can't find any examples.

So...

You claim that AE is not value free.

I claim that it is.

I cite portions of the theory which are value free.

You are unable to cite a single portion of the theory which is not value free.

You are therefore are unable to provide any evidence for your claim, while I provide evidence for mine.

You are wrong.

You have also failed to respond to the point that "finding that all Austrians share the same stance" is in no way, shape or form a vindication of the school in terms of its prejudices.
If the actual theory of AE was not wertfrei, then on those portions of the theory all Austrains should come to the same normative conclusions. The only reasons that they don't come to the same conclusions on those portions would be if some of them simply did not understand that particular portion of the theory. Of coarse, this is a completely idiotic explanation for the disagreement among Austrians. Even in this case, you would still need to cite the portion of the theory which is not value free.

It is your fault if you do not realize that you need to provide evidence for the claim that AE is not value free. Until you actually cite a portion that is not value free, nobody has any reason whatsoever to believe you.

Demogorgon

19th August 2010, 23:12

I am tired, and we are going to go round in circles anyway, so this will have to be brief.

Gradual privatization of different sectors of the economy. This is superior to revolution since it does not fall victim to Hayekian knowledge problems.
A revolution can be gradual too. The point is whether it is purposeful or piecemeal. The question I can't see the answer to is, how this would come about? Which group would want this and how would they be able to get it? The capitalists won't want it as no Governemnt would greatly hurt their businesses, the workers won't want it because the state does provide some benefits like education, healthcare, not to mention laws limiting what your boss can do. Those are the two biggest groups right there. So what third group do you see emerging who will want this?

It is also not true that all Austrians are right wing. Take Ropke for example. Burczak was also heavily influenced by Hayek. *chuckle* I was wondering how long it would be until Ropke worked his way into this discussion. Suffice to say, you know what I think on that subject, and I know what you think.

Austrain economics is not an ideology, and so my inability to find an ideology with no internal disagreement is not a point in anyones favor. However, there is internal disagreement among Austrians on wertfrei portions of the theory.

Unless you can specifically cite a portion of Austrian theory which contains a normative claim, then I don't see why anyone ought to accept your claims. I can already tell you however that you will not be able to provide an example, since none exist. Of course it is an ideology. Indeed it is one that attracts solely those specifically looking for one that can give the answers they want. And that is what I mean by it not being value free. The axioms it was based on were not made up in a vacuum, they are not neutral starting premises, they are principles that were chosen to get the desired conclusions and really only work if you already accept those conclusions. The idea of time preference for instance. It says that all else being equal, people will prefer current consumption to future consumption. All you need is one definite counter example to that though and it comes crashing down, that is why most people reject it. So why do some accept it, because of the conclusions it allows you to draw!

Skooma Addict

20th August 2010, 01:37

A revolution can be gradual too. The point is whether it is purposeful or piecemeal. The question I can't see the answer to is, how this would come about? Which group would want this and how would they be able to get it? The capitalists won't want it as no Governemnt would greatly hurt their businesses, the workers won't want it because the state does provide some benefits like education, healthcare, not to mention laws limiting what your boss can do. Those are the two biggest groups right there. So what third group do you see emerging who will want this?I don't believe anyone has yet fully worked out how it would work. I believe David Friedman explained a path the government could take, but as far as I know I don't know how one could get the government to follow such a policy. Or maybe if one community forms a successful ancap community, other communities will take notice and follow suit. I haven't looked into it extensively. But the main point is piecemeal reform does not suffer many of the problems that a sudden and massive social change does.

*chuckle* I was wondering how long it would be until Ropke worked his way into this discussion. Suffice to say, you know what I think on that subject, and I know what you think.
I remember I had a debate with someone over whether or not Ropke was an Austrian a while back. I assume that was you?

Although I just want to make sure about one thing. You are not going to claim that Ropke is not an Austrian because he doesn't have far right beliefs, right? Because you specifically asked me to provide an example of one without far right beliefs, in which case it would be ridiculous to claim that he is not one because he doesn't hold far right beliefs.

Of course it is an ideology. Indeed it is one that attracts solely those specifically looking for one that can give the answers they want. And that is what I mean by it not being value free. The axioms it was based on were not made up in a vacuum, they are not neutral starting premises, they are principles that were chosen to get the desired conclusions and really only work if you already accept those conclusions. The idea of time preference for instance. It says that all else being equal, people will prefer current consumption to future consumption. All you need is one definite counter example to that though and it comes crashing down, that is why most people reject it. So why do some accept it, because of the conclusions it allows you to draw! I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on this one. I think we both said all there is to be said.

You can have the last word.

Revolution starts with U

20th August 2010, 01:44

I am sorry, but the claims you are making are very stupid. I would be more polite, however you make extremely dogmatic claims such as...

"I could go on, but... arguing against AE is like arguing against the Bible.... a self-reciprocating exercise in intellectual masturbation. ;)"

You don't understand what a value free statement means. The statement you presented is value free. I hope you don't argue against the bible as poorly as you argue against AE.

Effects which the government can have on the market can remain value free. For example, "creating a binding price floor on wages will hamper employment" is a value free claim.

Darn! You found out! The jig is up! Its true, the capitalists all get together in Singapore and formed a secret plot to brainwash the population into believing AE!

Perhaps you should explain to me what value free means. As far as I can tell it is just a slippery statement intentionally designed to not allow the theory to be pinned down. This is what I got from wikipedia in a brief search.
For example, a positive economic theory might describe how money supply growth affects inflation, but it does not provide any instruction on what policy. ought to be followed.
I take it that is what you mean by value free. It makes no judgement on policy. If I am wrong, please correct me. Explain what this "value free" is. If I am right, then the whole theory is a value statement, as it in itself is a policy proposal; get the government out of the market.
You cant seperate the theory from its conclusions. If your theory says growing the money supply causes inflation, and inflation causes prices to go up, which causes people to buy less, which lowers demand, which restricts supply... that is proposing a policy of not growing the money supply.
Logic alone to explain things died out centruries ago. If you cannot provide evidence of your claims, your claims are worthless. As has been stated previously, austrians were just Laissez Fairests who wanted to back up their claims. But they had no evidence, so they created a logical formula that doesnt require any evidence. Bias in bias out.

Dean

20th August 2010, 04:34

So in other words, you can't find any examples.

So...

You claim that AE is not value free.

I claim that it is.

I cite portions of the theory which are value free.

You are unable to cite a single portion of the theory which is not value free.

You are therefore are unable to provide any evidence for your claim, while I provide evidence for mine.

You are wrong.

If the actual theory of AE was not wertfrei, then on those portions of the theory all Austrains should come to the same normative conclusions. The only reasons that they don't come to the same conclusions on those portions would be if some of them simply did not understand that particular portion of the theory. Of coarse, this is a completely idiotic explanation for the disagreement among Austrians. Even in this case, you would still need to cite the portion of the theory which is not value free.
The fact that you require universal agreement among Austrians shows how ludicrous this "value-free" issue is. Indeed, almost every ideological tendency can be cited as "value free" in this context. What you are talking about is simply uniformity. But its really not unlike you to come to conclusions so far removed from the relevant facts of the discussion.

If you want an example, I can cite the Austrian rejection of inductive logic - since that has rather central bearing on the Austrian models, and represents a very clear prejudice. As Demogorgon points out correctly, no theorist can be removed from their environment. This is why you are such a failure: you come upon Austrian theories with such naivete that you can actually believe the insanity that rejecting statistical, inductive and experimental examples somehow confers some integrity to Austrian Economics.

It does not. The "praxeological notion" of "value-free theory" is little more than a smokescreen: by your logic (as I pointed out) both major political parties, Marx and even Christianity can be seen as value free due to the disparate manifestation of the ultimate conclusions. Ayn Rand's "Objectiism" is the same kind of smug obfuscation which attempts to prove integrity based on a head-in-the-sand narrowness which is deliberately engineered to provide preconceived conclusions.

The point is, incorporating more and varied kinds of data is the most expansive and enriching method of scientific inquiry. Austrian economics (like "Objectivism") simply limits its available points of interest, which is counterproductive (though, just as in the case of Popper if you read my post there, it is also irresponsible to completely dismiss the school for this reason).

You really need to start studying some other economic resources - preferably some analytical types. This narrow focus on defending the Austrian school with its word games is really fruitless.

Skooma Addict

20th August 2010, 14:51

The fact that you require universal agreement among Austrians shows how ludicrous this "value-free" issue is. Indeed, almost every ideological tendency can be cited as "value free" in this context. What you are talking about is simply uniformity. But its really not unlike you to come to conclusions so far removed from the relevant facts of the discussion.I don't require universal agreement among Austrians. I just want to know why Austrians don't come to the same normative conclusions on the supposed (but nonexistent) normative portions of AE which you are unable to even point out.

If you want an example, I can cite the Austrian rejection of inductive logic - since that has rather central bearing on the Austrian models, and represents a very clear prejudice. As Demogorgon points out correctly, no theorist can be removed from their environment. This is why you are such a failure: you come upon Austrian theories with such naivete that you can actually believe the insanity that rejecting statistical, inductive and experimental examples somehow confers some integrity to Austrian Economics.Some Austrians reject inductive logic in certain circumstances. For example, Hayek was more open to inductive logic than Mises. The fact that some Austrians themselves are prejudiced (and everyone is "prejudiced" to a degree, in every science) does not mean the theories are not value free. You can determine whether a statement is value free in a completely formal manner. For example, the statement "monetary inflation does not affect the purchasing power of the currency" is incorrect and value free. The person making this claim could be some politician who is in favor of inflation in order to fund his pet project. Nonetheless, that statement is value free. "You should fund my project" is not a value free statement.

What you need to do is provide an example of a portion of AE which is not value free.

It does not. The "praxeological notion" of "value-free theory" is little more than a smokescreen: by your logic (as I pointed out) both major political parties, Marx and even Christianity can be seen as value free due to the disparate manifestation of the ultimate conclusions. Ayn Rand's "Objectiism" is the same kind of smug obfuscation which attempts to prove integrity based on a head-in-the-sand narrowness which is deliberately engineered to provide preconceived conclusions.
I don't see how both major political parties are value free, but at the same time, I am not really sure what you are saying here. I don't know what it means either to say that "Marx" was value free. But in no way whatsoever can Christianity be said to be value free. It is part of christian doctrine that one ought to follow the word of God. Now, certain arguments in favor of God by some Christians can be value free.

You really need to start studying some other economic resources - preferably some analytical types. This narrow focus on defending the Austrian school with its word games is really fruitless. How do you know what I study?