Ron Paul Rises

[kuronosan]

In that some aspects are strictly scientific, some are scientific but interpreted poorly or applied outside their reach, and some are pseudoscientific personality-cult bullshit? Yeah, I'd say that fits.

Wha-haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat?

[Kuya]

It is first a moral principle. Free market is adapted because it fits the moral principle with minimal contradictions. While the latter is most often argued, I am unaware of any criticism for the moral principle itself. I'll admit the term libertarianism is interchangeable between it's political theory, economic theory and moral theory, never the less, it's foundation is the moral theory. This is the given.



Really? Through that entire 2 page trollfest that's what you gathered? hehe. It's more like my mental kung fu beat The Queen of Libertarian's mental kung fu. In actuality I simply highlighted how Demos moral stance was similar to a libertarian's moral stance, which threw his 'hurrdurr libertarians r tooopids" stance into a loop. No doubt he'll recover sooner then I'd like, but alas, that's life. It was never meant to be deeper then that.



1. and 2. I assume your talking about the free market. I'd like to see a specific example of contradiction in reality.

and as to 3., you are totally off base here, most libertarian economists subscribe to subjectivity in economics, including austrians. It's not a difficulty in understanding free market, it's specific understanding that utilities and costs of individuals cannot be added or measured. While moral principles can be objective and measured. In fact, here is an article from Mises that criticizes what you describe (you are describing is utilitarian free-market) http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/twentysix.asp

tl:dr You are wrong about austrian school of economics.

I think you were right about libertarianism being more of a moral principle than a theory of economics. In fact, rather than say moral principle, i'd call it a moral system. That's why libertarianism seems to have little to do with the real world and the production of solutions to our real world problems. So, libertarianism, being a moral system, acts more like, say christianity. So i suppose comparing libertarianism with mainstream economics is a bit daft, even though libertarians can't seem to help acting as if they understand economics. I suppose it's more fair to compare libertarianism to modern conservatism or heterodox liberalism.

I suppose i should make a distinction between the things neoliberals assume and the things austrian economists assume. For starters, the former assumes perfectly or near rational actors looking to maximize their utility, but research into behavioral economics shows that people don't always behave in precise and well planned ways, but rather, they tend to act according to herd mentality, status quo bias, endowment bias, and loss aversion. Research has also shown that preferences do in fact change through time, and that people aren't very good at predicting how their own preferences change. Daniel Kahneman is a good source for this information.

In the case of austrian economists (and therefore libertarians and anarcho capitalists), rather than trying to construct models and experiments based on assumptions that don't pan out with reality, they just throw up their hands, and just assume the relationship they belief in is true without any need to feel they need to empirically justify it. You say austrians have come to an understanding that you can't measure the relationship between marginalism and prices, but to me that means the same thing as not understanding it. The issue here is that austrians think you can use axioms that you just gotta believe really hard are true, go through some deductive process, and assume your conclusion is true because you assumed your axioms true. Yet, that is not science. You can't simply grab marginalism or the belief that there is an intrinsic relationship between prices and preferences that lets people organize their economic activity without actually proving this in a reliable way, and that means in a scientific way. Yet austrians themselves subscribe to the view that you can't do science with economics:

Austrian economists reject empirical statistical methods, natural experiments, and constructed experiments as tools applicable to economics, saying that while it is appropriate in the natural sciences where factors can be isolated in laboratory conditions, the actions of humans are too complex for such a treatment because humans are not passive and non-adaptive subjects

Austrian economists claim one should instead isolate the logical processes of human action. Mises called this discipline "praxeology."[36] 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.[37]

According to Austrian economists, deduction is preferred to induction in interpreting economic developments, since if performed correctly, it leads to certain conclusions and inferences that must be true if the underlying assumptions are accurate. Austrian economists hold that induction does not assure certainty like deduction, as real world economic data are inherently ambiguous and subject to a multitude of influences which cannot be separated or quantified, one cause or correlation from another.

Mises wrote of his economic methodology that "its statements and propositions are not derived from experience... They are not subject to verification or falsification on the ground of experience and facts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_School

If this stuff looks like quackery to anyone in this forum, that's because it is.

[Milkster]

There's an interesting show that just premiered on PBS called Moyers & Company. If you can find the first episode online I'm sure everyone here would enjoy it.

[Mazmaz]

What, this?
http://billmoyers.com/episode/on-win...-all-politics/

[Kuya]

Moyers is back?

[Milkster]

Yes and yes.

[Chun Liroy]

You guys see the Mitt Romney is a Murderer commercial?

[Clash Perez]

There's an interesting show that just premiered on PBS called Moyers & Company. If you can find the first episode online I'm sure everyone here would enjoy it.

I'm only thirty-something seconds into it, but I found it hilarious that one of the first things said is, "It's not the 'haves' vs. the 'have-nots', it's the 'have-it-alls' vs. the rest of Americans." and then it quickly goes on to say that funding was provided by the Carnegie Corporation of New York.

[Mazmaz]

I'm only thirty-something seconds into it, but I found it hilarious that one of the first things said is, "It's not the 'haves' vs. the 'have-nots', it's the 'have-it-alls' vs. the rest of Americans." and then it quickly goes on to say that funding was provided by the Carnegie Corporation of New York.

And if you knew anything about the Carnegie Corporation you'd know that they're dedicated to spreading philanthropy, equality, and general goodness. Moyers mentions this in an interview in Colbert Report.

[Clash Perez]

No shit, but even so, if there's a single example of the "have-it-alls" over the last full century, it's the Carnegies.

[Mazmaz]

More like "had-it-alls". As in, those Carnegies had it all and then they spread that shit around to others and were awesome.

They're definitely not talking about the Carnegies when they say "have-it-alls".

[guartz]

I think you were right about libertarianism being more of a moral principle than a theory of economics. In fact, rather than say moral principle, i'd call it a moral system. That's why libertarianism seems to have little to do with the real world and the production of solutions to our real world problems. So, libertarianism, being a moral system, acts more like, say christianity. So i suppose comparing libertarianism with mainstream economics is a bit daft, even though libertarians can't seem to help acting as if they understand economics. I suppose it's more fair to compare libertarianism to modern conservatism or heterodox liberalism.

I suppose i should make a distinction between the things neoliberals assume and the things austrian economists assume. For starters, the former assumes perfectly or near rational actors looking to maximize their utility, but research into behavioral economics shows that people don't always behave in precise and well planned ways, but rather, they tend to act according to herd mentality, status quo bias, endowment bias, and loss aversion. Research has also shown that preferences do in fact change through time, and that people aren't very good at predicting how their own preferences change. Daniel Kahneman is a good source for this information.

In the case of austrian economists (and therefore libertarians and anarcho capitalists), rather than trying to construct models and experiments based on assumptions that don't pan out with reality, they just throw up their hands, and just assume the relationship they belief in is true without any need to feel they need to empirically justify it. You say austrians have come to an understanding that you can't measure the relationship between marginalism and prices, but to me that means the same thing as not understanding it. The issue here is that austrians think you can use axioms that you just gotta believe really hard are true, go through some deductive process, and assume your conclusion is true because you assumed your axioms true. Yet, that is not science. You can't simply grab marginalism or the belief that there is an intrinsic relationship between prices and preferences that lets people organize their economic activity without actually proving this in a reliable way, and that means in a scientific way. Yet austrians themselves subscribe to the view that you can't do science with economics:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_School

If this stuff looks like quackery to anyone in this forum, that's because it is.

Comparing libertarian moral ethics to Christianity is like comparing John Locke to Pat Robertson. Yes, they both wrote books about ethics, but if can't see the difference between them you might as well find the nearest wall and bang your head against it, because it's not being used for anything anyway.

And the latter part of your post is a bit redundant since I already know that Austrians are not scientists. Yes, they believe economics is the sum of human choices which as of yet, cannot be accurately measured. Let's just put your criticism in perspective though. Let's assume this Axiom, that you, Kuya, are a human being and you need food to survive, ergo, I predict you will attempt to acquire food sometime soon if you get hungry. I know, far fetched psuedo-science bogus. How about this one, people prefer to behave a certain way, therefore preferred behavior exists, ergo I predict Kuya will prefer some action over another. Quackery! Lunatics babbling! Cult propaganda!

If you don't know, what I'm using is probability and inductive reasoning.

[Kuya]

I thought it was obvious that the reason i was comparing libertarianism to christianity is because i think it's shit. I was being dismissive, guartz. If you want to elaborate on the theory of ethics of libertarianism so this entire forum may be richer in knowledge, then i invite you to do so.

Now, i am glad that you admitted, at the very least, that austrian economists aren't even remotely scientific. It at least puts some perspective on what exactly are we arguing about. We're arguing something more akin to philosophy, so anyone reading this can understand why arguments about austrian economics, libertarianism, and anarcho-capitalism are so irritatingly detached from reality. With that said, i would like you to tell me what point you're trying to make with your logic game, because the impression i got is that you're trying to say that austrian praexology is valid.

[test123]

Paulgasm

[Dantrag]

Other than Colbert, he has the best commercials. Still wont get the nod though.

[Ragnus]

That I have to agree with.

[archibaldcrane]

Paulgasm

We're supposed to get excited that Ron Paul wants to cut a trillion dollars out of the budget? That he criticizes opponents for funding Planned Parenthood?

lol

[Kuya]

I think his intention has long ago ceased to be convincing us of anything. In fact, i think he's been pretty irrelevant to a lot of discussion in this thread.

[Dantrag]

We're supposed to get excited that Ron Paul wants to cut a trillion dollars out of the budget? That he criticizes opponents for funding Planned Parenthood?

lol

No, he's saying that Santorum is supposed to be a "super" conservative and then helped fund Planned Parenthood(which most don't even do abortions - they're just a target).

[solanis]

you think the austrian school is quackery? that's cool, since that mode of thought is considered super outdated. chicago school reigns supreme in the academic and financial spheres, and keynesian thought putters on in government despite being proven fundamentally flawed over and over again.