Egalitarianism

[Conza88]

Hey guys, just wondering if I could get your opinions / arguments against this? I am having trouble refuting it...
http : // tinyurl.com/ 6fx7t

Also not sure if this is the right forum or not. Thanks!

[Demogorgon]

The reason you can't refute it is because you agree with it. Your signature tells us your actual views so just come out and say what you want to say rather than making an attempt to sneak it under the radar.

[Conza88]

The reason you can't refute it is because you agree with it. Your signature tells us your actual views so just come out and say what you want to say rather than making an attempt to sneak it under the radar.

I didn't want to scare folks away... with the title..

Please don't send me to the Gulag..

[Demogorgon]

While we are on the subject, unless you happen to have been born in 1988, I suspect you will be more than just restricted.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Blah blah blah people are naturally different blah. Difference does not imply any kind of objective hierarchy. Next argument?

Oh, and you guys should really stop putting obvious clues in your usernames, you know.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Blah blah blah people are naturally different blah. Difference does not imply any kind of objective hierarchy. Next argument?

Is this the same sort of piece that argues that in a "truly" egalitarian system, people will all be made the same height or something along those lines?

[Nwoye]

http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/8534.aspx

lawl. it's a mises.org conspiracy!

[krazy kaju]

haha, talk about epic phail. Why would you even try to impersonate someone else?

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Hey look, the Miseslings are watching and selectively choosing to focus on "emotional" posts full of moral indignation against their anti-human ideology instead of taking the time to read through our lengthy, argumentative posts in reply to Kaju in other threads.

Is anyone surprised?

[GPDP]

What the butt? Now we're having a forum war against the miseans? I thought we only did that with Stormfronters?

[Conza88]

While we are on the subject, unless you happen to have been born in 1988, I suspect you will be more than just restricted.

Correct in the former. Made it as my internet handle & only found out later what it could be interpreted as.

haha, talk about epic phail. Why would you even try to impersonate someone else?

I said I would, "impersonate" my former self, that = someone else? And I didn't even do that, I suggested I would, but alas I couldn't be bothered with the effort to do even that. I am open to persuasion; and what I said still stands up: "Hey guys, just wondering if I could get your opinions / arguments against this? I am having trouble refuting it..."

Kind of makes it extra obvious when I make my avatar, a picture of Marx being erected by the establishment. Add in my signature, my thread posted 2 minutes after this one, asking for marxist / socialist opinions about self ownership, me joining the chat & 'debating' Vinnie & others.. as an ancap.

I don't particularly see how I could have been confused as anything else.

Blah blah blah people are naturally different blah. Difference does not imply any kind of objective hierarchy. Next argument?

Is this some kind of rebuttal? Reading the thread there is a lack of responses to the actual article. Granted, some of the distraction stems from the op, lol.

[Invariance]

Add in my signature, my thread posted 2 minutes after this one, asking for marxist / socialist opinions about self ownership, me joining the chat & 'debating' Vinnie & others.. as an ancap.

For the benefit of everyone else, the debate consisted of Conza88 claiming that since humans must act, that the only way to refute praxeology is to prove that humans don't exist, Conza88's claim that since Picasso can paint something worth more than what a normal person would paint, that therefore the LTV was debunked, that there is a 'natural law', that all human actions are rational, and other interesting garbage (e.g against the minimum wage, that economics shouldn't apply a scientific method but should apply a priori philosophy etc). It wasn't so much a debate as a fantastic piece of comedy from Conza88. So far as the Austrian roundabout method of production is concerned, if I get time I'll post a thread debunking it as the nonsense it is. Hopefully Conza88 or anyone else from Mises.org can defend their theory. But considering they typically reject mathematics (and often I agree that neoclassical economics and their magical smooth curves are complete distortions of reality, but that is a problem of application not of mathematics per se), or empiricism, then I doubt they will.

[Invariance]

[FONT=Verdana]As a side note, it is interesting to note Rothbard's selective use of quotes (one might say a complete distortion). For example, I checked the full length of the quote by Lenin. Rothbard quoted Lenin as saying:[/FONT][FONT=Verdana]
[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]And Lenin looked forward in 1920 to the "abolition of the division of labor among people...the education, schooling, and training of people with an all-around development and an all-around training, people able to do everything. Communism is marching and must march toward this goal, and will reach it."
[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]Yet the full quote goes like this:[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]Capitalism inevitably leaves socialism the legacy, on the one hand, of the old trade and craft distinctions among the workers, distinctions evolved in the course of centuries; on the other hand, trade unions, which only very slowly, in the course of years and years, can and will develop into broader industrial unions with less of the craft union about them (embracing entire industries, and not only crafts, trades and occupations), and later proceed, through these industrial unions, to eliminate the division of labour among people, to educate and school people, give them all-round development and an all-round training, so that they are able to do everything. Communism is advancing and must advance towards that goal, and will reach it, [Rothbard conveniently cuts off here] but only after very many years. To attempt in practice, today, to anticipate this future result of a fully developed, fully stabilised and constituted, fully comprehensive and mature communism would be like trying to teach higher mathematics to a child of four.

We can (and must) begin to build socialism, not with abstract human material, or with human material specially prepared by us, but with the human material bequeathed to us by capitalism. True, that is no easy matter, but no other approach to this task is serious enough to warrant discussion.

Left-Wing Communism: an Infantile Disorder
[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]So, Lenin was quite realistic about the material requisites required for a communist system, and the experience of the Bolsheviks from 1920 on confirmed this view. Other quotes are probably just as distorted and taken out of context, which shouldn't be surprising coming from free-market fundamentalists.[/FONT]

[Conza88]

For the benefit of everyone else, the debate consisted of Conza88 claiming that since humans must act, that the only way to refute praxeology is to prove that humans don't exist.

Nay, the fundamental premises were being discussed. I said you have the wrong epistemology for the social sciences. I said the scientific method fails in economics. You laughed stating I said 'the scientific method fails in general.' I made the distinction between the natural sciences & the social sciences, no response to that. Question was asked why does it fail? - Because value is subjective, humans (individuals) are unique and have different preferences, values, tastes etc.

You asked what epistemology I thought you had, I said it could be a myriad of them, but if it's not apriori then it's wrong. I established the axioms the Austrian school is built on. Human action. i.e Humans exist. And they always act. It's self evident. From these axioms you can use logical deduction to gain further truths. Praxeology is the study of human action. Enter: Human action by Ludwig Von Mises, and Man, Economy and State by Murray N. Rothbard

Then there were laughs about apriori being absurd. etc

Conza88's claim that since Picasso can paint something worth more than what a normal person would paint, that therefore the LTV was debunked,

I said I spend 5 hours of my labor doing a painting. Picasso also spends 5 hours of his labor painting. I then asked, what determines it's value? Shouldn't it be the same according to LTV?

that there is a 'natural law'

[FONT=Arial]Introduction to Natural Law [FONT=Book Antiqua]by Murray N. Rothbard[/FONT][/FONT]

that all human actions are rational

Rationality and Irrationality; Subjectivism and Objectivity of Praxeological Research (p. 19) of Human Action.

and other interesting garbage (e.g against the minimum wage

If the minimum wage is $10 an hr, why shouldn't it be $30 or $50 an hr?

It wasn't so much a debate as a fantastic piece of comedy from Conza88.

Thanks, I also found the exchange amusing.

So far as the Austrian roundabout method of production is concerned, if I get time I'll post a thread debunking it as the nonsense it is. Hopefully Conza88 or anyone else from Mises.org can defend their theory. But considering they typically reject mathematics (and often I agree that neoclassical economics and their magical smooth curves are complete distortions of reality, but that is a problem of application not of mathematics per se), or empiricism, then I doubt they will.

It's all meaningless if you have the wrong epistemology / economic reasoning. These give light to what I'm talking about if anyone is interested on an elaboration of what was talked about earlier.

An Introduction to Economic Reasoning by David Gordon

"As the only text of its kind, this book is engaging, funny, filled with examples, and never talks down to the student. It is perfect for homeschoolers, but every student, young or old, will benefit from it. Indeed, a student familiar with its contents will be fully prepared to see through the fallacies of the introductory economics texts used at the college level."

Epistemological Problems of Economics by Ludwig Von Mises

"The science of human action that strives for universally valid knowledge is the theoretical system whose hitherto best elaborated branch is economics. In all of its branches this science is a priori, not empirical. Like logic and mathematics, it is not derived from experience; it is prior to experience. It is, as it were, the logic of action and deed."

Economic Science and the Austrian Method by Hans-Hermann Hoppe

Praxeology and Economic Science:

Sec I : "It is well-known that Austrians disagree strongly with other schools of economic thought..."
Sec II : "Non-praxeological schools of thought mistakenly believe that relationships between certain events are well-established empirical laws..."

On Praxeology and the Praxeological Foundation of Epistemology

Sec I : "As have most great and innovative economists, Ludwig von Mises intensively and repeatedly analyzed the problem of the logical status of economic propositions..."
Sec II : "Let me turn to Mises's solution..."
Sec III : "I shall now turn to my second goal: the explanation of why and how praxeology also provides the foundation for epistemology..."
Sec IV : "In so establishing the place of praxeology proper, I have come full circle in outlining the system of rationalist philosophy as ultimately grounded in the action axiom..."

Not allowed to post links yet, fair enough - property owner can impose the rules they want, so I guess google the titles.

[trivas7]

So, Lenin was quite realistic about the material requisites required for a communist system, and the experience of the Bolsheviks from 1920 on confirmed this view. Other quotes are probably just as distorted and taken out of context, which shouldn't be surprising coming from free-market fundamentalists.

How that quote by Lenin represents anything other than a blank check re what he expects of human beings living under communism is beyond me. How does Rothbard distort Lenin exactly?

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Nay, the fundamental premises were being discussed. I said you have the wrong epistemology for the social sciences.

How so? Is not human action guided by the human brain? Is not the human brain made of the same matter as the rest of the universe? Whatever laws apply to the rest of the universe must also apply to the human brain. Thus the social sciences are, and should always remain, a particular application of the natural sciences.

The Austrian argument against empiricism in economics amounts to "human behaviour is too difficult to understand scientifically, so let's give up trying."

I said the scientific method fails in economics.

Why?

Because value is subjective, humans (individuals) are unique and have different preferences, values, tastes etc.

So, what? Those preferences do not come out of thin air, you know. They are not uncaused. Like everything else in the universe, they have causes. With sufficient knowledge of those causes we could predict human preferences, and thus also predict your "subjective value". (all of this assuming you are right about value - which, of course, you are not; but the point is that even if you were right, the scientific method would still be applicable to economics)

I said I spend 5 hours of my labor doing a painting. Picasso also spends 5 hours of his labor painting. I then asked, what determines it's value? Shouldn't it be the same according to LTV?

And they would be worth roughly the same, if Picasso did not sign his painting. You see, a Picasso painting is only valuable because it was painted by Picasso. The exact same painting made by someone else (an exact copy, for example) is worth much, much less. So the difference in price between your painting and Picasso's comes entirely from his signature.

And why is that? Because, in bourgeois society, paintings by famous artists can serve as status symbols. They are a form of conspicuous consumption. But they have to be originals. An exact copy just won't do. And the supply of Picasso originals is limited and can never increase. This artificially limited supply drives the price of a Picasso painting far above its value. You'd see the price drop sharply if everyone suddenly forgot who Picasso was.

This reveals another problem with Austrian "Economics". An Austrian would be content to observe that people value Picasso originals very highly, far above any exact copies, and would leave it at that. He would not inquire why people have that preference. Austrian Economics fails because, among other things, it takes individual preferences as axiomatic and unchangeable by external means. In reality, preferences can be changed, and often quite easily and without involving the state. But Austrians refuse to accept that some preferences can be morally superior to others, so they have no ethical basis on which to attempt to change people's preferences - not even by voluntary persuasion.

Or to use a practical example: To an Austrian, there is no moral difference between a billionaire spending his money on a luxury yacht and a billionaire spending his money to feed starving children, so they would not even attempt to persuade the former to be more generous. Even at their most benign, Austrians advocate indifference in the face of overwhelming evil, and for this they are as evil as the monsters they tolerate.

Oh, and by the way, Picasso was a communist.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Since you asked so nicely, Conza, I will take the time to explain precisely why that sad heap of Rothbardian logical fallacies you referenced is wrong.

Let us proceed, then, to a critique of the egalitarian ideal itself – should equality be granted its current status as an unquestioned ethical ideal? In the first place, we must challenge the very idea of a radical separation between something that is "true in theory" but "not valid in practice." If a theory is correct, then it does work in practice; if it does not work in practice, then it is a bad theory.

This is only true for positive statements, not normative ones. It may be impossible to ensure perfect justice, but this does not make perfect justice a bad idea.

The common separation between theory and practice is an artificial and fallacious one. But this is true in ethics as well as anything else. If an ethical ideal is inherently "impractical," that is, if it cannot work in practice, then it is a poor ideal and should be discarded forthwith.

There is no such thing as an ideal which cannot work in practice. Anything can be put into practice. When we say that some ethical ideal "cannot work," we do not mean that it is literally impossible, but rather that it is impossible in the near future, or that it could only be implemented at great cost. But if you are willing to pay the cost or wait as long as necessary, any ethical ideal is possible.

To put it more precisely, if an ethical goal violates the nature of man and/or the universe and, therefore, cannot work in practice, then it is a bad ideal and should be dismissed as a goal. If the goal itself violates the nature of man, then it is also a poor idea to work in the direction of that goal.

Non-sequitur. It may be possible that a desirable goal violates the nature of man while at the same time the nature of man allows us to asymptotically approach that goal (without ever reaching it).

For example, the complete absence of murder is a desirable goal. It's also quite clear that it violates the nature of man - there will always be some murder. Does that mean that we should abandon all attempts to approach this desirable but impossible goal? Of course not. We will likely never reach the goal itself, but every step forward towards it is good. The more we can reduce murder, the better.

What, in fact, is "equality"? The term has been much invoked but little analyzed. A and B are "equal" if they are identical to each other with respect to a given attribute. Thus, if Smith and Jones are both exactly six feet in height, then they may be said to be "equal" in height. If two sticks are identical in length, then their lengths are "equal," etc. There is one and only one way, then, in which any two people can really be "equal" in the fullest sense: they must be identical in all of their attributes. This means, of course, that equality of all men – the egalitarian ideal – can only be achieved if all men are precisely uniform, precisely identical with respect to all of their attributes.

Strawman. One giant strawman. No real egalitarian supports "equality" in this sense.

The rest of the argument can be entire discarded, as it is an argument against the strawman proposition that "all people should be identical to each other in every respect." No one advocates this, therefore Rothbard is arguing with himself. What we communists advocate is equality OF WEALTH. Rothbard does not even bother to mention economic equality or equality of wealth in that entire essay.

This ends the debate, except for one last point:

...the species, mankind, is uniquely characterized by a high degree of variety, diversity, differentiation; in short, inequality...

So, as you can see, my initial reply was entirely accurate: "Blah blah blah people are naturally different blah." Difference does not imply any kind of objective hierarchy. Next argument?

And while we're at it, I'd like to comment on your signature:

"The difference between libertarianism and socialism is that libertarians will tolerate the existence of a socialist community, but socialists can't tolerate a libertarian community."

The toleration of injustice is a vice, not a virtue. If a certain kind of society is unjust, then it should be eradicated everywhere and replaced with something better. You are taking pride in your refusal to do good onto other people, even by your own standards of what is good. How fitting.

[nerditarian]

May I enter the waltz of words here?

How so? Is not human action guided by the human brain? Is not the human brain made of the same matter as the rest of the universe? Whatever laws apply to the rest of the universe must also apply to the human brain. Thus the social sciences are, and should always remain, a particular application of the natural sciences.

Because (as I understand it and I'm certainly a lesser expert than the fellow Misesians cruising for a bruising) at this point you enter into a giant post hoc ergo propter hoc scenario that you enter into.
In a chem lab you can isolate your variables. Because we added calcium it bubbled. Or whatever. IANAC/IANAP. But in the social sciences we are not dealing with numbers and figures. First of all take the Great Depression. One person says it ended after the US entered WWII. One person says that the WWII statistics are flawed and the Depression didn't truly end until the post-war period. Whose right? One says once we went to war the depression lessoned, hence we are correct and the other says once we ended the war and cut regulation the depression really ended. Once more which party is correct? Impossible to know with an empiricist epistemology. I wish I had been more concise but I hope you can bear it, old sport.

The Austrian argument against empiricism in economics amounts to "human behaviour is too difficult to understand scientifically, so let's give up trying."


Why?

merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science

Part of your confusion is that you are viewing the definition of science where science=scientific method vs. science=systematic knowledge. In this sense of the word I don't see why Austrianism is unscientific, just anti-empiricist. I also don't see why everything should inherently be understood by empirical methods rather than by axiomatic-deduction.

So, what? Those preferences do not come out of thin air, you know. They are not uncaused. Like everything else in the universe, they have causes. With sufficient knowledge of those causes we could predict human preferences, and thus also predict your "subjective value". (all of this assuming you are right about value - which, of course, you are not; but the point is that even if you were right, the scientific method would still be applicable to economics)

What's your favorite color? What's everyone in this forum's favorite color? Be careful to get the right answer-it may effect later patterns and thus change how it is necessary to structure central planning.

Since I already defended a priori economics, I will simply add that empiricism fails in all other social sciences too.

And they would be worth roughly the same, if Picasso did not sign his painting. You see, a Picasso painting is only valuable because it was painted by Picasso. The exact same painting made by someone else (an exact copy, for example) is worth much, much less. So the difference in price between your painting and Picasso's comes entirely from his signature.

And why is that? Because, in bourgeois society, paintings by famous artists can serve as status symbols. They are a form of conspicuous consumption. But they have to be originals. An exact copy just won't do. And the supply of Picasso originals is limited and can never increase. This artificially limited supply drives the price of a Picasso painting far above its value. You'd see the price drop sharply if everyone suddenly forgot who Picasso was.

I'll ignore some loaded language and cut to the chase. You're admitting that people value originals more and you're admitting that this raises the price. Now, whether you find how other people value things correct or not is beyond me. The point is that because people value a painting by a famous artist (b/c it's a status symbol or whatever) they will pay more for it. Hence, the value of the paintings in question is subjective as is all value. Thanks for the opening, old sport. At least concede STV after that. QED.

This reveals another problem with Austrian "Economics". An Austrian would be content to observe that people value Picasso originals very highly, far above any exact copies, and would leave it at that. He would not inquire why people have that preference. Austrian Economics fails because, among other things, it takes individual preferences as axiomatic and unchangeable by external means. In reality, preferences can be changed, and often quite easily and without involving the state. But Austrians refuse to accept that some preferences can be morally superior to others, so they have no ethical basis on which to attempt to change people's preferences - not even by voluntary persuasion.

Austrian Economics is value-free, or at least it strives to be. Of course slipping bias in is what happens in all versions of economics. Here you are confusing libertarians, an ethical-political philosophy, with Austrians, a tradition in economics. Whilst there is much overlap for the sake of clarity lets keep them separate.

Austrian Economics deals only with Economics. Period. It does not attempt to say for example, whether its better to have a high or low time preference. It only attempts to elucidate the effects on society of having people with different time preferences that wish to voluntarily associate.

Libertarianism, a philosophy most Austrians support, does hold moral views on these matters. A libertarian would agree for example that a preference not to murder is greater than one to murder. See below for more.

Or to use a practical example: To an Austrian, there is no moral difference between a billionaire spending his money on a luxury yacht and a billionaire spending his money to feed starving children, so they would not even attempt to persuade the former to be more generous. Even at their most benign, Austrians advocate indifference in the face of overwhelming evil, and for this they are as evil as the monsters they tolerate.

Ay there's the rub: first the leftist proclaims that "we" (psst-some agency that I bet is coercive will probably have to enforce this...) have the ability and right to both know the factors that effect an individual's choices and valuations and then to pressure this individual to change. Aside from the near impossibility of gathering and updating all that information, there is no moral difference between freedom and criminal control here! Then he proceeds to attack the poor yacht industry.

Let's examine what would happen if his wish was followed through with. No more yachts! What happens next? All the people who make yachts go out of work. All the people who make parts for yachts go out of work. All the people who rely on the transportation for yachts and their employees go out of work or at least lose a lot of money. All the people who mine fiberglass either go out of work or lose a lot of their wages. All the people who had any money in any of these enterprises go out of work. All the people who relied on the patronage of these people lose money or go out of work. So how are you going to feed the children of these people, commissar?

Oh, and by the way, Picasso was a communist.

Ironic! A communist posthumously shows LTV to be a crock of horse sh*t! Well, if even communists are disagreeing with it...

[nerditarian]

Since you asked so nicely, Conza, I will take the time to explain precisely why that sad heap of Rothbardian logical fallacies you referenced is wrong.

As an ideological compatriot of Cona's I do thank you. Sparing doth sharpen the mind, eh?

This is only true for positive statements, not normative ones. It may be impossible to ensure perfect justice, but this does not make perfect justice a bad idea.

I haven't read this in awhile but read my summary and correct me if I'm wrong: First, Rothbard both asserts that individualist ethics are more rational and, well, moral as compared to collectivist or egalitarian ethics. Then, Rothbard asserts that your definition of "justice", which he deems unjust, requires violation of human rights and human life to be accomplished. Therefore it is an unjust ideal.

Rothbard is not saying if it's unlikely stop trying. Hell, Rothbard himself expounded many times on why anarcho-capitalists should not despair based on the odds against him. I think your missing his point.

There is no such thing as an ideal which cannot work in practice. Anything can be put into practice. When we say that some ethical ideal "cannot work," we do not mean that it is literally impossible, but rather that it is impossible in the near future, or that it could only be implemented at great cost. But if you are willing to pay the cost or wait as long as necessary, any ethical ideal is possible.

To an extent, I do concede. I do concede that normative ethical statements do not have to appear to be achievable to be valid. However, this is not entirely fair. But that's not the point I want to address, rather->

Why should everyone be equal economically?

Non-sequitur. It may be possible that a desirable goal violates the nature of man while at the same time the nature of man allows us to asymptotically approach that goal (without ever reaching it).

If the nature of man dooms an ideal to poverty, death, hunger, misery and [eventually] collapse then is that ideal desirable?

For example, the complete absence of murder is a desirable goal. It's also quite clear that it violates the nature of man - there will always be some murder. Does that mean that we should abandon all attempts to approach this desirable but impossible goal? Of course not. We will likely never reach the goal itself, but every step forward towards it is good. The more we can reduce murder, the better.

I am of course anti-murder, but see my previous critique. Socialism means poverty, theft, death, hunger and misery while a bunch of fat cats in the citadels of power grow wealthy off the backs of the masses.

Strawman. One giant strawman. No real egalitarian supports "equality" in this sense.

The rest of the argument can be entire discarded, as it is an argument against the strawman proposition that "all people should be identical to each other in every respect." No one advocates this, therefore Rothbard is arguing with himself. What we communists advocate is equality OF WEALTH. Rothbard does not even bother to mention economic equality or equality of wealth in that entire essay.

No. Reread it. Rothbard is doing this for a reason. He's not strawmaning you. Rather he's making a nuanced point. He is arguing against the moral justification for any form of intervention on behalf of equality. Be it equality of wealth or equality of height. Whatever anyone could argue for.

The toleration of injustice is a vice, not a virtue. If a certain kind of society is unjust, then it should be eradicated everywhere and replaced with something better. You are taking pride in your refusal to do good onto other people, even by your own standards of what is good. How fitting.

You are touting doing good at the point of a bayonet and killing those who disagree. Least we are willing to live and let live! When was the last time you put your despicable, murder-excusing face in front of a mirror?!?

Thanks for your time,
Nerditarian

[laminustacitus]

How so? Is not human action guided by the human brain? Is not the human brain made of the same matter as the rest of the universe? Whatever laws apply to the rest of the universe must also apply to the human brain. Thus the social sciences are, and should always remain, a particular application of the natural sciences.

The fact is is that man, unlike trajectories, or atoms react differently to different stimuli, even the same person might react differently merely a second after. Man, and atom need to be classified differently if we are ever to truly understand either.