|
On July 22 2011 09:17 BestZergOnEast wrote:
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.
Yes axioms do not require proof, and they can also be pretty arbitrary. You can create two systems, in one axiom A is assumed and in the second negation of A is axiom. Both of those systems can be logically consistent and you cannot judge one over another without knowledge external to both systems. If we want to talk about reality than I would propose empirical evidence to be that judge, for example.
That said I did not dispute that human action axiom is "true" ( I could raise some objections to it, but I did not yet ), I disputed that it is a priori synthetic truth. I do that because claiming a priori truth is the dogmatic crutch that a lot of "austrians" revert to when they have no other arguments left.
|
|
|
On that note, wherebugsgo, check this video...it's quite sad:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=0df_1312505527
Xarthaz, you are a nut if you think Somalia is a success story. It's downright offensive to call that bad of a humanitarian crisis a "success story". Cell phone towers...please. Have you looked at the facts concerning how many are currently starving to death there? It makes me sick. The little boy in the video...it's powerful stuff - I don't even know what else to say.
|
is this a joke. armchair philosopher looking to debate internet forums to gain some sense of intellectual superiority.
|
In free market the price and exchange equilibrium guide available resources to those which are bid to their prices by their consumers. This ensures use of the factors of production according to consumer preferences. Remember, the free market can produce a solution to Somalia's problems, where the State can only blindly guess what the resources are to be used for. The categorical strictness of the Rothbard passages i posted is solid elaboration of this concept.
|
On August 06 2011 10:59 dreamsmasher wrote:
is this a joke. armchair philosopher looking to debate internet forums to gain some sense of intellectual superiority.
It definitely has something to do with the unique nature of forum communication. Whereas with normal intellectual interaction there exist certain standards of communication, forums allow individuals to get away with (I say this loosely mind you) parroting the thinking of those they believe to be intelligent without having to perform any sort of contextualization or personalization. Then again, most people who champion the likes of Mises tend to do act in this manner, even in true interpersonal interaction. Sorry bub, but if you debated people in real life and did nothing but regurgitate the thoughts of other men, no one would listen or care.
|
In free market the price and exchange equilibrium guide available resources to those which are bid to their prices by their consumers.
This is true of any market, not just a free one... the issue is who is allowed to bid and what the bids are allowed to be that makes a market free or not.
This ensures use of the factors of production according to consumer preferences.
Okay so we have two non-controversial sentences...
Remember, the free market can produce a solution to Somalia's problems, where the State can only blindly guess what the resources are to be used for.
I think you left out a sentence or two, first you're simply explaining how supply and demand (simplicity is a virtue in speech!) causes the allocation of resources, and now we're on "the free market can solve Somalia's problems" and "the State can only guess blindly at supply and demand."
There's no connection in the text between the first two sentences and the last two, for such a logical person you should know better than to do that.
In any case, Somalia does not have the rule of law or societal cohesion necessary for the respect of private property both from the State and private individuals / organizations that is necessary for a free market to escape distortion through corruption / extortion / etc.
The free market could indeed solve Somalia's problems, if Somalia was in a condition where the free market would actually be free. It is not, and it is not the existence of the State that is responsible for this.
The categorical strictness of the Rothbard passages i posted is solid elaboration of this concept.
You know, Rothbard wrote a play about Ayn Rand (after the fallout between the Austrians and Objectivists mostly caused by Rand acting like a massive bitch towards Rothbard) mocking her for exactly the same behavior devotees of Rothbard display today. He would have been appalled that his works were simply being regurgitated, instead of being ingested and carefully considered so the readers would have a full mastery of his ideas. He certainly would have taken the time to explain his concepts rather than just copy-paste passages from his books and say "there's your explanation." But that's because he had mastery over his ideology, something you do not. Your understanding of it is evidently very shallow, as you are unable to actually talk about Rothbard's works, you just copy-paste them.
But on the other hand, later in his career Rothbard started to use the same kind of moral heavy-handedness, particularly towards Hayek (“F.A. Hayek’s Constitution of Liberty is, surprisingly and distressingly, an extremely bad, and, I would even say, evil book.”). So maybe he wouldn't be surprised or appalled at how his acolytes behave.
|
But the free market - it is true Somalia's is not completely free. But then you go on to say that the state is necessary to get it free. Cant you see its the complete opposite? It is the statist oppressors who are tainting the free enterprise of the residents of the area. The US and UN sponsored combatants that attempt to set up a proxy through which their policies could be enforced. It is the grim result of shady world politics. But the Somalis are bravely fighting back. Even in the midst of tragic weather conditions the struggle to remain free continues.
The Rothbard fanaticism -
It was related to Hayek's inconsistent and unclear presentation of propertarianism. Rothbard and Hoppe cleared the issue out, and hence the necessary warnings to readers about the confusion still present in Hayeks writings on the matter.
The reasoning for word-to-word argumentations is wish to remain true to the purity of the rothbardian system. One can develop own tangents from that but the resulting incoherence and future issues to deal with limit its use to the frontiers of Austrian brain storming, rather than a structured and unified thrust for liberty that is to be used in more common situations like message board debate.
|
|
|
LOL, the OP is a joke. Somalia is in a 20 year civil war. Somalia is a failed state and is one of the poorest and most violent countries in the world.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
