|
On July 21 2011 20:57 Hryul wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2011 08:47 xarthaz wrote:
Well the discussion is about Mises so might as well debunk him instead of me. He was the main guy who applied the kantian concept of knowledge as justification of action, rothbard kind of denounced that. "theory and history" also contains relevant passages in addition to "human action" But just because Kant said it, it isn't necessarily true. I must admit, that I stopped halfway while reading Kant because I neither agree with him him nor does he provide proper conclusions. Kant's main success was the insight that there must be some a priori ability of perception. What he didn't know about was evolution, so one can understand, why he just made educated guesses about the nature of the a priori given abilities of perception. But for me, due to evolution, these a priori abilities of perception are a subject of natural sciences, mainly biology/psychology. I tend to assume that they might be far more general than Kant (and maybe Mises too) assumed. + Show Spoiler +If I am wrong on Kant please let me know.
Mises addresses the evoloutionary intermediate logic stage argument against The Formal and Aprioristic Character of Praxeology in Human Action Chapter 2:2 Page 32 and onwards.
Nope, discussion is about a statement, not about a person. The argument is independent of any person and quoting is not a valid way to argue, especially quoting those unclearly written texts. But if you must then quote at least only things that are relevant to the point someone is making.
And no I am not going to waste time reading these books unless I get convinced they are worth it, but that seems very unlikely judging by the quotes I saw. The premise of argumentation being independent of person also implies no differentiation between quoting and writing own claims.
|
I guess the anarchists are getting organized
|
On July 22 2011 02:14 xarthaz wrote:Show nested quote +Nope, discussion is about a statement, not about a person. The argument is independent of any person and quoting is not a valid way to argue, especially quoting those unclearly written texts. But if you must then quote at least only things that are relevant to the point someone is making.
And no I am not going to waste time reading these books unless I get convinced they are worth it, but that seems very unlikely judging by the quotes I saw. The premise of argumentation being independent of person also implies no differentiation between quoting and writing own claims.
Yes, that is why I wrote that if you really must quote then quote. The reason why quoting is not a good way to argue is that if I am arguing with you I actually want to know you understand what you are writing and not just posting somewhat related blocks of text and non-quoted text makes it easier.
But whatever, I am still waiting for the actual argument.
|
On July 22 2011 02:14 xarthaz wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2011 20:57 Hryul wrote:On July 21 2011 08:47 xarthaz wrote:
Well the discussion is about Mises so might as well debunk him instead of me. He was the main guy who applied the kantian concept of knowledge as justification of action, rothbard kind of denounced that. "theory and history" also contains relevant passages in addition to "human action" But just because Kant said it, it isn't necessarily true. I must admit, that I stopped halfway while reading Kant because I neither agree with him him nor does he provide proper conclusions. Kant's main success was the insight that there must be some a priori ability of perception. What he didn't know about was evolution, so one can understand, why he just made educated guesses about the nature of the a priori given abilities of perception. But for me, due to evolution, these a priori abilities of perception are a subject of natural sciences, mainly biology/psychology. I tend to assume that they might be far more general than Kant (and maybe Mises too) assumed. + Show Spoiler +If I am wrong on Kant please let me know. Mises addresses the evoloutionary intermediate logic stage argument against The Formal and Aprioristic Character of Praxeology in Human Action Chapter 2:2 Page 32 and onwards. Show nested quote +Nope, discussion is about a statement, not about a person. The argument is independent of any person and quoting is not a valid way to argue, especially quoting those unclearly written texts. But if you must then quote at least only things that are relevant to the point someone is making.
And no I am not going to waste time reading these books unless I get convinced they are worth it, but that seems very unlikely judging by the quotes I saw. The premise of argumentation being independent of person also implies no differentiation between quoting and writing own claims.
Except when the quote isn't relevant to the discussion? Not only that, but throwing page numbers and chapters at people and expecting them to find your book and read it isn't conductive to the discussion..
Some of your posts have caused quite a lot of backlash, and you have not addressed your detractors. You mentioned how deflation creates economic growth (by stimulating savings) without commenting on how it also reduces market demand, forces companies out of the market, and drives up wages, all of which do not cause economic growth.
You post one paragraph by Rothbard about how governments are an overall economic loss, but haven't addressed people's arguments countering Rothbard. Rothbard doesn't "prove" anything in his argument, and in fact only attacks a strawman constructed on vastly outdated economic theory. All economists currently realize the loss of value inside government, there is a term "dead weight loss" attributed to it. It is the concept of diminishing marginal returns that give governments positive value.
I am getting frustrated by your posts because you have claimed you would like discussion, but you are avoiding actually articulating arguments. You have spent your time throwing walls of text at us, usually containing so much jargon, straw men, and circular logic that we end up more confused and frustrated than informed. So use your own words, write plainly what you want to say, and if you are incapable of that, clearly you don't understand what you are trying to argue well enough.
|
Mcc...You'll still be waiting 16 pages from now.
The thing is, I've seen you post in other topics Xarthaz. I know you can effectively communicate. Or do two people use that account?
I've seen hole after hole poked in your posts and I've seen time and again, you ignore what suits you and vomit back a link or direct copy/paste.
All everyone keeps asking is that you try a little harder if you're going to make some ludicrous claim like this whole topic.
In fact, I challenge you to get your point across in 150 words or less using common everyday language. If the average journalist can do it, so can you. You're not writing a dissertation, you're not spreading propaganda, you're trying to communicate. Oh and no links. Use your own words.
Edit : lol, above poster ninja'ed me.
Good work 
|
I would like make a comparsion to Nigeria.
I've recently watched a Ross Kemp's film about Nigeria's petrol problem, in particular, petrol piracy. It was following the whole problem's story. I could clearly see that back then, maybe 5 years ago, it was literally blooming. There was no control at all. Petrol wells were left unchecked and everybody who owned a small tanker ship with an appropriate equipment could just go there and get some black gold. Like the Somalian anarchy today.
But what's the important?
Back then, Nigeria didn't have a good government at all. Just constant political wars about power and no administration at all. Looks like Somalia today.
In contrast, in the final part of the film, Ross Kemp visited one of the states' governor. A variety of viseomaterial and statistics were shown in the research, displaying that cases of oil piracy and oil leakage has dropped a significant number. Suddenly all that misery, pesimism and constant feeling of utter upsetness, induced by the previous scenes were gone. People were happily yellling at they leader.
The whole point of this was that anarchy is one of the worst possible scenarios for one country.
Simple conclusion - better have a poor, but stable political leader than not having one at all. Might sound naive, but history confirms that.
Unite people! White, black, asian - we're all the same!
|
+ Show Spoiler +The fundamental logical relations are not subject to proof or disproof. Every attempt to prove them must presuppose their validity. It is impossible to explain them to a being who would not possess them on his own account. Efforts to define them according to the rules of definition must fail. They are primary propositions antecedent to any nominal or real definition. They are ultimate unanalyzable categories. The human mind is utterly incapable of imagining logical categories at variance with them. No matter how they may appear to superhuman beings, they are for man inescapable and absolutely necessary. They are the indispensable prerequisite of perception, apperception, and experience.
Since you forgot the nice thing, that everyone here expects you to do, namely writing down the arguments on your own, I just started reading Mises' Human Action chapter 2.2 on my own. I will not do this again!
Then I came to the paragraph above. Since you just said: read that, I read until I found something very questionable.
I agree, that the fundamental logical relations i.e the Axioms are not subject to proof or disproof, but I refuse to accept, that they are unexplainable. One can very easily write down all the Axioms needed for conclusions in Maths. Then you just plug in the expression you want to prove and go all the way down just following these rules. It's like connecting lines. You don't even need to know the meaning of what you want to prove as long as you obey the rules.
The human mind is also not incapable of imagining other logical structures. There exists works of Philosophers and Mathematicians who (successfully) try to research different ways of logical conclusions. It's just very abstract but very much possible.
+ Show Spoiler +Furthermore I don't think that they are very much out of touch with nature since the logic we use provided as with a tool to survive thousands of years. So at least at the first glance, the logic we use works very well together with the nature we live in. (Let alone quantum mechanics or relativism.)
I just wanted to write the spoilered paragraph until I realized the huge misstep: He admits that our logic is formed by evolution yet claims the fundamental rules are independent of evolutions. Then, we are unable to explain our logic to any other race, while the fundamental rules are independent of the world we live in. wtf?
Edit: removed a word which I didn't erase from a previous version
|
On July 22 2011 02:14 xarthaz wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2011 20:57 Hryul wrote:On July 21 2011 08:47 xarthaz wrote:
Well the discussion is about Mises so might as well debunk him instead of me. He was the main guy who applied the kantian concept of knowledge as justification of action, rothbard kind of denounced that. "theory and history" also contains relevant passages in addition to "human action" But just because Kant said it, it isn't necessarily true. I must admit, that I stopped halfway while reading Kant because I neither agree with him him nor does he provide proper conclusions. Kant's main success was the insight that there must be some a priori ability of perception. What he didn't know about was evolution, so one can understand, why he just made educated guesses about the nature of the a priori given abilities of perception. But for me, due to evolution, these a priori abilities of perception are a subject of natural sciences, mainly biology/psychology. I tend to assume that they might be far more general than Kant (and maybe Mises too) assumed. + Show Spoiler +If I am wrong on Kant please let me know. Mises addresses the evoloutionary intermediate logic stage argument against The Formal and Aprioristic Character of Praxeology in Human Action Chapter 2:2 Page 32 and onwards.
Now it really gets ridiculous. You don't even quote anymore, you just state pages. I really hate when people claim that, but i come to believe that you are actually a troll. No intelligent person would actually argue in such a way directly after people were complaining that your posts usually just consist of quotes instead of your own arguments, or at least using your own words to formulate other peoples arguments.
|
He doesn't have his own opinion. He's doing the ole' copy paste bull crap, while attackin strawmen he makes for himself. All the while ignoring any posts that call him it.
|
the argumentation evidence for logical supportation of your claims are anomalous for the particularly reasonable claims you have here forth made assertions to but however the logical flaws are corollary of an argument that fails to address all aspects of relevant axiom.
This is how you sound like OP... you sound like a pretentious asshole whenever you say anything. Sorry, someone had to say it.
|
On July 21 2011 07:24 Tewks44 wrote:
Without government there is no way to protect property rights. With no property rights an economy can't thrive. I think it's adorable that the OP is trying to argue his way out of this even though the country he mentioned is currently experiencing famine and is one of the most violent countries in the world. You can try to craft an argument as elegantly as you want. The fact of the matter is anarchy doesn't work, and Somalia is an example.
That's why it's not an anarchist country.
People such as Xarthaz are only trolling anarchy in my opinion.
Proudhon, the first who said "I am an anarchist" was not against State ! You think anarchy is as simple as that ? Please.
Anarchist have never stated "let's just destroy the state and live with no law"... No it's about power and not order.
Everything in this thread is about a bunch of free markestist putting a new make up on their ideas and using a disgusting exemple. It's not anarchy because there is nothing about dialectics in their thinking process, while it's actually the ground of any thought on anarchy. Everything is too perfect, like one idea or one system can solve the problems of mankind while for true anarchy it's the opposite : the state protect you and at the same time it is the biggest source of violence / property is theft and will eventually destroy freedom and equality but you can't do nothing about it and it's a necessity to keep individual freedom / technologies diminish the pain of workers but it also develop wage labour and so on...
Anarchy is all about contradiction, that's why anarchist were always the ennemy of both communism and liberalism.
I will state things again : Anarchy from the grec anarkhia meaning absence of leadership. It's a society without chief or unique authority, but not necessarily a society with no organisation : you can have political power but no domination in an anarchist state.
|
On July 22 2011 02:59 Hryul wrote:+ Show Spoiler +The fundamental logical relations are not subject to proof or disproof. Every attempt to prove them must presuppose their validity. It is impossible to explain them to a being who would not possess them on his own account. Efforts to define them according to the rules of definition must fail. They are primary propositions antecedent to any nominal or real definition. They are ultimate unanalyzable categories. The human mind is utterly incapable of imagining logical categories at variance with them. No matter how they may appear to superhuman beings, they are for man inescapable and absolutely necessary. They are the indispensable prerequisite of perception, apperception, and experience. Since you forgot the nice thing, that everyone here expects you to do, namely writing down the arguments on your own, I just started reading Mises' Human Action chapter 2.2 on my own. I will not do this again!Then I came to the paragraph above. Since you just said: read that, I read until I found something very questionable. I agree, that the fundamental logical relations i.e the Axioms are not subject to proof or disproof, but I refuse to accept, that they are unexplainable. One can very easily write down all the Axioms needed for conclusions in Maths. Then you just plug in the expression you want to prove and go all the way down just following these rules. It's like connecting lines. You don't even need to know the meaning of what you can want to prove as long as you follow the rules. The human mind is also not incapable of imagining other logical structures. There exists works of Philosophers and Mathematicians who (successfully) try to research different ways of logical conclusions. It's just very abstract but very much possible. + Show Spoiler +Furthermore I don't think that they are very much out of touch with nature since the logic we use provided as with a tool to survive thousands of years. So at least at the first glance, the logic we use works very well together with the nature we live in. (Let alone quantum mechanics or relativism.)
I just wanted to write the spoilered paragraph until I realized the huge misstep: He admits that our logic is formed by evolution yet claims the fundamental rules are independent of evolutions. Then, we are unable to explain our logic to any other race, while the fundamental rules are independent of the world we live in. wtf?
Ah cool, that paragraph is actually close what I wanted him to state and defend.
Most of this post is directed at xarthaz.
I will start with thinking about "proofs" of human action axiom. Most of them that I saw use law of excluded middle to "prove it". But what if I reject that law, and I can easily do that. There are logical systems that do not contain it and therefore do not contain proof by contradiction. Now we are at an impasse as we do not agree on the basis of argumentation and in my system suddenly many of the logical conclusions of your system are not valid.
Now point of that was not to say that there is no way for people to argue, because of different logical systems. No, the point is that there are different logical systems and we choose one for our discourse. How do we do that ? Well we choose the one that makes sense based on our experience, the one that somewhat matches the reality. (Note that when I say choose I mean partially by biological evolution and partially by cultural one). That means that even the base of our discourse is based in empiry. No a priori truths.
|
On July 21 2011 06:34 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2011 05:35 xarthaz wrote:
zocktol, Government burning money would be better for the economy than spending it. Spending it bids resources to unprofitable government dictated ends, burning the taxed money would raise interest rates and stimulate real savings and investment.
mcc, rothbard is talking about statements that can be demonstrated. In the paradigm of demonstrated utility, government contribution is indeed zero Nope. Still impossible to determine.
Thats the point. He is talking about that which is possible to determine. And that is zero.
Trying to keep this on the topic of the fundamental arguments against government, hence ignoring some tangents. the argument over existance of action axiom is infact unnecessary because any talk on economics presupposes it hence it being a necessary premise of the debate, not a subject of argumentation(logical order being- debate of economics assumes market activity, which assumes supply demand, which assumes exchange and diminishing marginal utility, which assumes action in a scarce world.).
You post one paragraph by Rothbard about how governments are an overall economic loss, but haven't addressed people's arguments countering Rothbard. Rothbard doesn't "prove" anything in his argument, and in fact only attacks a strawman constructed on vastly outdated economic theory. All economists currently realize the loss of value inside government, there is a term "dead weight loss" attributed to it. It is the concept of diminishing marginal returns that give governments positive value.
so show how rothbards argument is wrong and how your argument is correct
|
Trying to keep this on the topic of the fundamental arguments against government, hence ignoring some tangents. the argument over existance of action axiom is infact unnecessary because any talk on economics presupposes it hence it being a necessary premise of the debate, not a subject of argumentation(logical order being- debate of economics assumes market activity, which assumes supply demand, which assumes exchange and diminishing marginal utility, which assumes action in a scarce world.).
"So show how your argument is correct."
|
On July 22 2011 02:29 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2011 02:14 xarthaz wrote:Nope, discussion is about a statement, not about a person. The argument is independent of any person and quoting is not a valid way to argue, especially quoting those unclearly written texts. But if you must then quote at least only things that are relevant to the point someone is making.
And no I am not going to waste time reading these books unless I get convinced they are worth it, but that seems very unlikely judging by the quotes I saw. The premise of argumentation being independent of person also implies no differentiation between quoting and writing own claims. Yes, that is why I wrote that if you really must quote then quote. The reason why quoting is not a good way to argue is that if I am arguing with you I actually want to know you understand what you are writing and not just posting somewhat related blocks of text and non-quoted text makes it easier. But whatever, I am still waiting for the actual argument. That was the argument, the mises quote block. one of the justifications for action axiom as mises presented it. You are waiting? But what about critiquing it, like hryul did?
|
Hryul sadly accepted your very poor dialog manners, and still reacted as if you were politely arguing. But not everyone is that forgiving of impoliteness.
The polite way of having a discussion is by using your own words to formulate an argument, instead of copying and pasting the argumentation of someone else. By doing so, you demonstrate to the other parties that you both understand your argument, and value them enough to actually type a specific post.
By posting just posting quotes or, even worth, stating that other should read up on the subject, you demonstrate that you think that the other is not worth your own time, or that you think the other needs to be lectured instead of taken seriously. Maybe you don't even know what you are talking about, noone can tell since you don't use your own words. Also by using your own words, you shut down that avenue of argumentation of "you just don't understand what these intelligent people are writing", which you seem to like to use, and which also is very condescending and dependent on the idea that your interpretation of that scripture is absolute, and any other is wrong, thus adding another layer of safety nets to your argumentation because you don't actually tell people how you interpretate that highly technical text.
The main problem here is obviously that you don't seem to have any common ground with anyone else in this discussion, since you go for a dogmatic view, rather than one founded by empirical data. So, by ignoring the best known scientific methodologic for an archaic system, you make it impossible to argue with your points. For this debate to make any sense, either you need to accept scientific methods, and then one can debate on this grounds, or everyone else needs to accept your dogmas, and then one can have a theological debate on the grounds of those dogmas. If not one of those happens, the whole thing makes about as much sense as a debate between creationists and intelligent people.
|
On July 22 2011 06:41 xarthaz wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2011 02:29 mcc wrote:On July 22 2011 02:14 xarthaz wrote:Nope, discussion is about a statement, not about a person. The argument is independent of any person and quoting is not a valid way to argue, especially quoting those unclearly written texts. But if you must then quote at least only things that are relevant to the point someone is making.
And no I am not going to waste time reading these books unless I get convinced they are worth it, but that seems very unlikely judging by the quotes I saw. The premise of argumentation being independent of person also implies no differentiation between quoting and writing own claims. Yes, that is why I wrote that if you really must quote then quote. The reason why quoting is not a good way to argue is that if I am arguing with you I actually want to know you understand what you are writing and not just posting somewhat related blocks of text and non-quoted text makes it easier. But whatever, I am still waiting for the actual argument. That was the argument, the mises quote block. one of the justifications for action axiom as mises presented it. You are waiting? But what about critiquing it, like hryul did?
I am waiting for you to actually post it again with some more inferences as to how it shows that human action axiom is a priori truth. As for some critique see my response to Hryul's post.
|
On July 22 2011 06:25 xarthaz wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2011 06:34 mcc wrote:On July 21 2011 05:35 xarthaz wrote:
zocktol, Government burning money would be better for the economy than spending it. Spending it bids resources to unprofitable government dictated ends, burning the taxed money would raise interest rates and stimulate real savings and investment.
mcc, rothbard is talking about statements that can be demonstrated. In the paradigm of demonstrated utility, government contribution is indeed zero Nope. Still impossible to determine. Thats the point. He is talking about that which is possible to determine. And that is zero.
You cannot just default to zero because you cannot determine something. He gets the zero by purely arbitrary declaring it after he just said that without market valuation there is no way to get anything.
|
On July 22 2011 07:15 Simberto wrote:
Hryul sadly accepted your very poor dialog manners, and still reacted as if you were politely arguing. But not everyone is that forgiving of impoliteness.
The polite way of having a discussion is by using your own words to formulate an argument, instead of copying and pasting the argumentation of someone else. By doing so, you demonstrate to the other parties that you both understand your argument, and value them enough to actually type a specific post.
By posting just posting quotes or, even worth, stating that other should read up on the subject, you demonstrate that you think that the other is not worth your own time, or that you think the other needs to be lectured instead of taken seriously. Maybe you don't even know what you are talking about, noone can tell since you don't use your own words. Also by using your own words, you shut down that avenue of argumentation of "you just don't understand what these intelligent people are writing", which you seem to like to use, and which also is very condescending and dependent on the idea that your interpretation of that scripture is absolute, and any other is wrong, thus adding another layer of safety nets to your argumentation because you don't actually tell people how you interpretate that highly technical text.
I just want to second this part. If you want to have a conversation, take the other serious and tread them as equal.
Now I will have myself a bunch of games. Maybe I get some response to my arguments by the next time, I'm around. have a nice day fellas.
|
An axiom does not require proof, it is prima facie true. Man act's purposefully. How can anyone dispute this? We think of things we want and we take action to get them. You are hungry so you open to fridge.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
