But studying them is hard. The social sciences of today all seem to be natural-science attempts of solving human behavior in a mathematical and tested way. They treat man like it were an object, observing it from the outside, at distinct perspectives. Sociology, psychology, economics, politics. Why all the segregation? Man's mind isn't that separated itself. You have one yourself, can't you tell? Do you constantly think about the psychological, sociological, political implications in each one of your actions? I doubt it. Couldn't there be a lowest common denominator, something common that can explain much of all those subjects approaches, all in one?
Why yes, it's called hierarchical temporal memory theory Praxeology!
Praxeology is the study on why and how man chooses to act. It is the key concept used in Austrian economics if there's one. The premises are pretty simple but the repercussions are big. I will try to explain the basics as I understand them, deviating a bit from how Ludwig von Mises describes it, because I think I'm better than him. Or am just lazy.
1- Man has goals 2- Man knows and prefers certain means to such goals 3- Man acts on those means which, at the present, are expected to best fulfill his goals.
Goals are objectives, they can be either big or small. The big can be composed of many small ones. Happiness is usually regarded as the ultimate goal, but I will make no judgment of that in regards to what man's goals are. Praxeology is a value-free science.
Means are the manners in which man knows he can act. He knows to a lesser extent the outcomes of these means, and the price he has to pay for them - time, energy, money, mana, whatever it may be. Man learns throughout his life not only a bunch of means but also preferences in the use of them for his goals. Means are valued differently on how well man has experienced them in accomplishing a goal.
This framework of action is present in everyone's head, and it is true because I (or you) deem it to be true. No need for calculators or graphs, just introspective reasoning alone can build these premises. You're free to disagree of course, at which point this becomes just a pet theory. But do try to follow anyway! Praxeology is fun! LOL
An example of praxeology in action.
A- You are thirsty. So you want to drink something. B- In your fridge, you spot one Gatorade, a Pepsi, and water bottles. You like to drink Gatorade best when you're thirsty because you've seen the commercial and you're hardcore like that C- Consequentially, you get and drink the Gatorade.
Pretty simple, because you can directly evaluate both your immediate goals and means, you can concisely choose a solution that is expected to work great for you, even when facing multiple options. Here Austrians would add the subjective theory of value and say that you valued the Gatorade more than any other drink for the purpose of thirst quenching.
Let's try with someone else.
A- Timmy is thirsty. B- Timmy spots an ice cream van passing by. C- Timmy buys a chocolate ice cream and eats it.
Here it's a little tricky. We don't actually know Timmy's intentions and preferences as we can't get inside his head, so we're assuming quite a bit more by stating A and B this time. It goes beyond what we can definitely observe, introspectively. Asking Timmy how he was feeling, before the van came by, would help a little, and asking Timmy afterwards why did he buy and eat that ice cream too. But even still, we're assuming then that Timmy is telling the truth, and that he hasn't considerably changed his preferences or goals throughout this prospective study (which I feel is quite possible for a kid really.)
This is both a bad and a good thing. Good thing is that Austrians aren't ever burdened by making 100% correct predictions about human behavior; bad thing is, Austrians can't ever logically claim to make 100% correct predictions. duh. But the other social sciences don't always get it right either, so who cares. It's just how it is until someone makes a brain scanner. If possible.
These were two simple examples of praxeology in individual action. Praxeology preaches that methodological individualism is the way to go to understand human action in greater scales. First you understand the atom, man, then you can move to particles, small groups of people, to bigger and bigger objects. Praxeology and Austrian Economics in general shuns on those who try to get the big picture first with fancy formulae, without understanding the atom a-priori. I'm looking at you Keynesians.
Going on to two people now. Why do two men trade goods? Like any other means, it is because it maximizes each one's utility (goal-attainment). Contrary to the (still popular) mercantilist approach, a trade does not happen because goods are valued "the same", it is precisely because each man values them differently.
Shoemaker makes x shoes a day Baker makes x loaves of bread a day Assume the raw materials come for free. What goes through each persons' head for them to agree on trading a pair of shoes for two loaves of bread?
The shoemaker may think like this: A- Hungry (goal being, not to die of hunger or to be satisfied) B- Has put labor into making a ton of shoes C- Therefore, has no problem exchanging the labor to get rid of his hunger.
And the baker...: A- Old shoes, blisters (want to have healthy feet and walk comfortably) B- Has baked a ton of bread C- Would love to exchange bread for shoes, a little labor to walk good.
What is being exchanged is not exactly bread v. shoe, but the purpose, or goal, that each item fulfills for each individual. In here again is the concept of subjective value. The baker trades his means to have his goals attained, and so does the shoemaker. Such evaluations can take a fraction of a second, and man very commonly goes through hundreds if not thousands of them a day. It is such an automatic yet rational behavior that has become second nature to man.
Since people regularly have different goals to accomplish, and different things they can do, trade is very beneficial in the sense that it encourages each person to do one thing best, fulfilling other's goals better while other's specialized work can fulfill their own, in exchange. That is what the "free market" proportionates. This is called division of labor, and it ain't half bad.
But of course praxeology is not limited to what one would consider economical subjects. Praxeology can be used to any human action. Why do men make friends? Why do men make politics? Why do men make sweet love to one another? These are all potentially answerable (not 100%) by filling the motive gaps.
This is good enough of an introduction. I'd get into coercion and central planning but that would be too much and would sparkle the type of discussion I'm not in the mood for atm. I will be happy to answer questions and be called a retard, just like in every thread I make. Ty for the compliments in advance!
as you've studied this subject do you find that it interrelates with the possibility of AI? essentially Praxeology seems to delve into the human algorithm from what I've gathered of your post, unless I'm wrong in my interpretation.
On June 29 2010 10:33 Roe wrote: as you've studied this subject do you find that it interrelates with the possibility of AI? essentially Praxeology seems to delve into the human algorithm from what I've gathered of your post, unless I'm wrong in my interpretation.
Yes. I believe praxeology is just a higher abstraction to what will become of neurology. But neurology is still too young to confirm or deny my belief. Do watch this if interested (in what I'm interested)
both goals and means could be hierarchically organized in a correlational manner, with the ultimate goal (happiness) being somewhat "hardcoded". Higher preference goals and means have been more repetitively inputted more connected and therefore more easily synapsed. Lower preferences, less connected, less likely synapsed. The mind is constantly changing the correlations little by little, so it does make sense to me. Something like that.
Care to recommend some books or lectures? As a strategy game player and student I'm curious in what ways this has been studied in relation to game theory. Or generalized game theory even. I'm no expert but it seems like Praxeology would be closer to GT than to something like generalized Darwinism.
I'm also glad to hear you say that about Neurology. I've had similar discussions with a few psychology majors where they disagreed
I remember having to do some research for a school project, and I ended up reading some material on Praxeology, most notably Human Action by Mises. Fascinating stuff.
i might finish watching this talk. but if i would have sat in the audience, i would have sure left after that statement. i blame this type of reasoning not only for religious bullshitting but also for economical bullshitting. someone tell me how am i supposed to take this seriously with all the technical training and education i had showing me the exact opposite?
if you don't know what upsets me about this, you might want to check up on euler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler) and how he showed us that a straight line can indeed NOT be the shortest distance between 2 points. funny that i heard of a study pointing out this very fact and how average persons were off judging the distance between 2 points by wide margins.
/edit: funny how almost all of his examples have some real world counterexamples (with the notable exception of the first 2, but i assure you that physicists are working on that 2).
/edit2: another time reference to the video because saying some statement (or negating a statement) is ridiculous sure gives an huge amount of credibility. this type of reasoning led to fascism in germany. communist dictatorship in north korea. the war in irak (remember the wmd's?).
/edit3: from his german wikipedia page:
Sein Buch Demokratie. Der Gott, der keiner ist ist eine Kritik der Demokratie und des demokratischen Staates. Weder in der Familie, noch in der Kirche, in der Wissenschaft oder in der Wirtschaft gebe es Demokratie. Hoppe selbst befürworte „Freiheit statt Demokratie“.
since i, by accident, speak german, i will translate this.
His book "Democracy. The god that isn't." is a critique of democracy and of democratic states/nations. Niether in family, church, science or economics there is democracy. Hoppe himself is advocating "freedom instead of democracy".
of course, his english wikipedia page this quote and view is somewhat ... missing.
his german wikipedia site holds even more inhuman statements. will translate if hoppe keeps on advocating people exploiting others.
kinda funny though that i am an austrian and beeing here appalled by "the austrian method".
/edit4: another time reference to the video watch until 45:12. if you had some classes in logic you can immediatly see that he made some error even though he explained the popper method (or scientific method as we call it here ... dunno about the us) right. if you hypothesize A -> B and you observe A -> C you did falsify A -> B. but of course this does not mean A -> B can never occur. also does this not mean that A -> C will always be true. you just found out that A -> B is not always the case.#
funny thing is that after the example he de-couples the timeline entirely. the problem now is that you can't make predictions of you say things change over time without a way to incorporate this into a hypothetical model. and if you cannot make predictions ... i ask myself what is he doing all day long if someone can say that all his predictions are not going to become true.
i still wonder why there are no immediate questions to such obvious flaws in his own reasoning.
i might finish watching this talk. but if i would have sat in the audience, i would have sure left after that statement. i blame this type of reasoning not only for religious bullshitting but also for economical bullshitting. someone tell me how am i supposed to take this seriously with all the technical training and education i had showing me the exact opposite?
Simple, don't take it seriously if you don't wanna
On June 30 2010 02:10 jacen wrote: if you don't know what upsets me about this, you might want to check up on euler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler) and how he showed us that a straight line can indeed NOT be the shortest distance between 2 points. funny that i heard of a study pointing out this very fact and how average persons were off judging the distance between 2 points by wide margins.
Well I don't know much about mathematics, but I believe a straight line is, by definition, the shortest path between two points. That what straight means. But I could be wrong, and I'm sure Hoppe wouldn't mind being wrong either, since it's just an example of a very basic principle that is commonly accepted (fact). Austrian Economics rests on other axioms.
On June 30 2010 02:10 jacen wrote: /edit: funny how almost all of his examples have some real world counterexamples (with the notable exception of the first 2, but i assure you that physicists are working on that 2).
Do tell!
On June 30 2010 02:10 jacen wrote: /edit2: another time reference to the video because saying some statement (or negating a statement) is ridiculous sure gives an huge amount of credibility. this type of reasoning led to fascism in germany. communist dictatorship in north korea. the war in irak (remember the wmd's?).
What type of reasoning? A-priorism? Introspectionism? So, because Hitler thought a-priori that x people must die, anyone else who thinks anything a-priori is equivalent to Hitler?
Well, not only would that be a fallacy of guilt by association, but I think that in fact, Hitler did use more induction than deduction to "prove" that other races are unfit and all. Central planners most usually are very scientific and try to justify their acts by an objective necessity, against a threat that only them are able to infer. "Our intelligence reports show that x is an enemy; statistics show that regulation y is necessary; history says you need to do Z or I will have to arrest you"... but you're free to disagree.
On June 30 2010 02:10 jacen wrote: /edit3: from his german wikipedia page:
Sein Buch Demokratie. Der Gott, der keiner ist ist eine Kritik der Demokratie und des demokratischen Staates. Weder in der Familie, noch in der Kirche, in der Wissenschaft oder in der Wirtschaft gebe es Demokratie. Hoppe selbst befürworte „Freiheit statt Demokratie“.
since i, by accident, speak german, i will translate this.
His book "Democracy. The god that isn't." is a critique of democracy and of democratic states/nations. Niether in family, church, science or economics there is democracy. Hoppe himself is advocating "freedom instead of democracy".
of course, his english wikipedia page this quote and view is somewhat ... missing.
his german wikipedia site holds even more inhuman statements. will translate if hoppe keeps on advocating people exploiting others.
Austrians are very openly opposed to democracy. Democracy means x number of people can legally violate <x people's private property and self-ownership. That violation is no different than a monarchy or totalitarian state in type, even if it may come about more softly in its abuses due to the power diffusion.
On June 30 2010 02:10 jacen wrote: kinda funny though that i am an austrian and beeing here appalled by "the austrian method".
Haha
On June 30 2010 02:10 jacen wrote: /edit4: another time reference to the video watch until 45:12. if you had some classes in logic you can immediatly see that he made some error even though he explained the popper method (or scientific method as we call it here ... dunno about the us) right. if you hypothesize A -> B and you observe A -> C you did falsify A -> B. but of course this does not mean A -> B can never occur. also does this not mean that A -> C will always be true. you just found out that A -> B is not always the case.#
What Hoppe's saying is that in order for you to conclude that an occurance of A->C (but no B) can only falsify A->B if you also assume that A hasn't changed through time.
You're not disagreeing with Hoppe at all, and I wouldn't be hasty to say that Hoppe doesn't know basic logic hehe. You're talking to a famous a-priori economist, logic is a pre-requisite to get where he is... not saying he's perfect of course, but you know what I mean.
On June 30 2010 02:10 jacen wrote: funny thing is that after the example he de-couples the timeline entirely. the problem now is that you can't make predictions of you say things change over time without a way to incorporate this into a hypothetical model. and if you cannot make predictions ... i ask myself what is he doing all day long if someone can say that all his predictions are not going to become true.
It's not that you can't make predictions, you can of course, even if you want to treat man like a rock, but he's saying that the predictions are never going to be 100% true when it comes to man, because the constant premise isn't ever true.
On June 30 2010 02:10 jacen wrote: i still wonder why there are no immediate questions to such obvious flaws in his own reasoning.
What an interesting article... I would never want to try to study the human mind. It would be way over my head.
How would you explain the action's of someone who gives his life to save a complete stranger?
The stranger's life is more valuable than his own. Thats 100%. Due to what goals, I don't know, could be many. He wants to be known as a hero after death? He wants the stranger to be happy? He wants to die like the actor he saw on a movie? Thats what I can think of.
What an interesting article... I would never want to try to study the human mind. It would be way over my head.
How would you explain the action's of someone who gives his life to save a complete stranger?
The stranger's life is more valuable than his own. Thats 100%. Due to what goals, I don't know, could be many. He wants to be known as a hero after death? He wants the stranger to be happy? He wants to die like the actor he saw on a movie? Thats what I can think of.
Could you even really consider those as possibilities? I feel like in that situation, the man (or woman) wouldn't have time to consider the "pros" and "cons" of his actions. I mean, I might think that I would save someone but that doesn't mean anything.
I guess my point is that there are an infinite number of possibilities, and one of them could be he just reacted without considering his own goals...
This looks fascinating Yurebis. I've only read half so far, because I'm falling asleep at my desk. But I'm going to finish this tomorrow. Thanks for all your effort!
3- Man acts on those means which, at the present, are expected to best fulfill his goals.
why does a staple of the... "science" break down so quickly when the decisions change from meaningless to anything substantial?
sure, it works when timmy wants an ice cream, but what about stuff that matters? if i can think of a good example later i might post again. i just don't see this working out when the circumstances are more complex than "i want kitty!" ... "I haz kitty now!"
What an interesting article... I would never want to try to study the human mind. It would be way over my head.
How would you explain the action's of someone who gives his life to save a complete stranger?
The stranger's life is more valuable than his own. Thats 100%. Due to what goals, I don't know, could be many. He wants to be known as a hero after death? He wants the stranger to be happy? He wants to die like the actor he saw on a movie? Thats what I can think of.
Could you even really consider those as possibilities? I feel like in that situation, the man (or woman) wouldn't have time to consider the "pros" and "cons" of his actions. I mean, I might think that I would save someone but that doesn't mean anything.
I guess my point is that there are an infinite number of possibilities, and one of them could be he just reacted without considering his own goals...
So he acted without thinking? I think he had enough time to act. But in the case the didn't, then that particular action doesn't fall on the "rational action" realm. Like a knee-jerk reaction. But most knee-jerk reactions are defensive; you fall back, you protect your face and body. To reach out and risk your life to save someone does require enough evaluation I think.
His book "Democracy. The god that isn't." is a critique of democracy and of democratic states/nations. Niether in family, church, science or economics there is democracy. Hoppe himself is advocating "freedom instead of democracy". of course, his english wikipedia page this quote and view is somewhat ... missing.
his german wikipedia site holds even more inhuman statements. will translate if hoppe keeps on advocating people exploiting others.
kinda funny though that i am an austrian and beeing here appalled by "the austrian method".
I don't understand, What's appalling?
Furthmore could you please clarify some of your statements about a line, I'll admit i'm no mathmatician but i'm sure i'm not the only one that has always been taught that a line is the fastest route between two points in the physical world.
On June 30 2010 06:06 Yurebis wrote: Well I don't know much about mathematics, but I believe a straight line is, by definition, the shortest path between two points. That what straight means. But I could be wrong, and I'm sure Hoppe wouldn't mind being wrong either, since it's just an example of a very basic principle that is commonly accepted (fact).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geodesic A geodesic is only a straight line if projected from or to a specifc point/area of space. All other projections are arcs. Even a "straight" projection is not as much a straight line as we know it all from 2d paper geometry because near their endpoints they will travel some significant distance out of the plane of your projection.
On June 30 2010 02:10 jacen wrote: /edit: funny how almost all of his examples have some real world counterexamples (with the notable exception of the first 2, but i assure you that physicists are working on that 2).
Do tell!
Later on he states, that you cannot enclose an area between 2 lines. This is proofed wrong by enclosing an area between 2 great circles on the earth's surface (or any sphere). This works with many non-euclidean geometries.
Btw, i made a mistake by saying euler was one of the "inventors" of this. In reality it was gauss and later on riemann. I am sorry and will edit my above post accordingly.
"No material thing can be at 2 places, at once." Well that's the easiest one since i only have to link to the famous double slit experiment where particles (here in vienna, they do it with C-60 molecules already!) indeed are in both slits at the same time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_slit_experiment If you are unsure and really want an in-depth explaination i can give you one tomorrow since this is quite a topic to write about when i cannot assume that you know the basics of quantum physics.
Another of his examples is "no 2 objects can occupy the same space". Later yesterday i remembered that this can also be refuted with the example of bose-einstein condensate or superconductors. Since bose-einstein condensates are a little tricky to describe if you don't know at least some of quantum physics, i will confine to superconductors. Superconductors still conduct current by the means of electrons. The difference is that each electron is joined (their waves are overlapping) by another electron. They, by definition, occupy the same space at the same time. This has a dramatic effect on their state and they now can "ignore" the band structure of the base material, enabling them to "fly through the material like on rails".
The next "whatever is green all over, cannot be yellow allover at the same time." is not very well defined so i will try and give 2 counter examples. 1) Color blind people do perceive colors differently. While most of us would label the color of an certain object to purple, colorblinds may disagree and say it's blue. 2) Imagine a fluorescent ball that will glow green on the dark once it has sufficient energy saved up. This ball should have the color blue when lit with white light. Now if we look at it under daylight, the ball is blue. If we look at it at night and only light it from one side, it is blue on the lit side and green on the dark side.
On to "If A is a part of B and B is a part of C then A is a part of C also". This is true if you accept that group theory is the only way to look at entities. Since i am no math's major, i cannot give a counter example from the top of my head (at least non relating to the real world). Might try to find one until the end of the week though.
On June 30 2010 02:10 jacen wrote: /edit2: another time reference to the video because saying some statement (or negating a statement) is ridiculous sure gives an huge amount of credibility. this type of reasoning led to fascism in germany. communist dictatorship in north korea. the war in irak (remember the wmd's?).
What type of reasoning? A-priorism? Introspectionism?
Both really. How do you think someone will believe in a-priorism and introspectionism if you cannot reproduce your findings. What value do these findings have other than saying "it was so back then, but noone can say how it will be for you or how it will be for me once i repeat it.". This leads to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introspection_illusion
As for A-Priorism, i use it every day ... well maybe not every day, but quite often since mathematics is based on it. Nonetheless i cannot state that, because i devise a mathematical model for a system that works under specific input parameters, that this model will work with all ranges of possible parameters. For instance Newton's law of gravitation. It's fairly easy mathematically, but once you try to calculate anything out of a situation where you have 3 masses or more, you cannot deduce a definitive answer. This does niether falsify the law of gravitation (since it obviously works when we test it in controlled environments) nor the deduction that led to it. But it limit's it's ability to express everyday phenomena. This is true for most laws encountered in physics. This is why we need experiments to verify that models are applicable even if they can't be analytically calculated (think about this sentence).
On June 30 2010 06:06 Yurebis wrote: Austrians are very openly opposed to democracy. Democracy means x number of people can legally violate <x people's private property and self-ownership. That violation is no different than a monarchy or totalitarian state in type, even if it may come about more softly in its abuses due to the power diffusion.
".. even if it may come about more softly in its abuses due to the power diffusion." You are absolutly right. And i think (i'm technician not a social science guy hence take this with a grain of salt) that the more you diffuse power, the better off everyone will be. But also you limit progress. Since i cannot mathematically model this, i cannot propose wether progress will continue, halt or revert once power is distributed equally. Feel free to believe it does one of these 3 things, but please do not claim "it is so" before you can propose a mode that someone can replicate.
On June 30 2010 02:10 jacen wrote: if you hypothesize A -> B and you observe A -> C you did falsify A -> B. but of course this does not mean A -> B can never occur. also does this not mean that A -> C will always be true. you just found out that A -> B is not always the case.#
What Hoppe's saying is that in order for you to conclude that an occurance of A->C (but no B) can only falsify A->B if you also assume that A hasn't changed through time.
Well then he did word it pretty bad. And even this is what he wanted to say, it's not true since influences of time are ... well, everywher to be found in physical models. One of the more diffucult topics are indeed systems where relations depend on the time and where the relation takes place.
This is why general relativity is a fucking bitch to grasp and even harder to calculate/use. :/ But rest assured, it is possible to incorporate the changes over time once you modeled them. I agree that this is no easy task for the human central nervous system, but projects like the brain simulator in switzerland (is it in bern? i forgot) or jeff hawkins htm project linked earlier in this thread are ever so slowly getting there.
On June 30 2010 02:10 jacen wrote: funny thing is that after the example he de-couples the timeline entirely. the problem now is that you can't make predictions of you say things change over time without a way to incorporate this into a hypothetical model. and if you cannot make predictions ... i ask myself what is he doing all day long if someone can say that all his predictions are not going to become true.
It's not that you can't make predictions, you can of course, even if you want to treat man like a rock, but he's saying that the predictions are never going to be 100% true when it comes to man, because the constant premise isn't ever true.
Well the scientific method does not say models are "true". So it is also incorporating this uncertainty factor of our limited observation, intelligence, time and ressources. Like i said in the previous paragraph: neurology guys are currently developing models for our brain. These will not be 100% accurate, but if the model also describes it's scope, they will be fairly accurate in some time.
Btw: "... the predictions are never going to be 100% true ..." How is something only 80% true? Or did you mean something is true 80% of the time. Because according to my view of the world, this is not the same.
On June 30 2010 06:18 Dance.jhu wrote: How would you explain the action's of someone who gives his life to save a complete stranger?
The stranger's life is more valuable than his own. Thats 100%. Due to what goals, I don't know, could be many. He wants to be known as a hero after death? He wants the stranger to be happy? He wants to die like the actor he saw on a movie? Thats what I can think of.
I can't see what information you got from that other than: "Sometimes someone gives his own life for someone else. But sometimes they don't. I can't really predict when each of both will happen." As Hopper said ... his view does not take goals into account, so it's silly to speculate on them.
On June 30 2010 06:30 Dance.jhu wrote: Could you even really consider those as possibilities? I feel like in that situation, the man (or woman) wouldn't have time to consider the "pros" and "cons" of his actions. I mean, I might think that I would save someone but that doesn't mean anything.
I guess my point is that there are an infinite number of possibilities, and one of them could be he just reacted without considering his own goals...
So he acted without thinking? I think he had enough time to act. But in the case the didn't, then that particular action doesn't fall on the "rational action" realm. Like a knee-jerk reaction. But most knee-jerk reactions are defensive; you fall back, you protect your face and body. To reach out and risk your life to save someone does require enough evaluation I think.
See, you start to divide actions in "rational actions" and "irrational actions" when both are done by a determined system (the brain that is acting). Can you also elaborate on why they both (rational and irrational actions) are not interacting within the system? I assume you mean "rational actions" as actions you can explain in your model and "irrational actions" as ones that you cannot deduce in your model. Correct me if i am wrong.
I have a hunch that "irrational actions" are kinda like the "hidden variables" that plagued quantum science for some time.
Btw: knee-jerk reactions are not always defensive. I somewhere read that there are 3 general categories of people confronted with a threat: -) people that are aggressive and take the thread head on -) people that freeze and try to duck & hide -) people that try to flee
On June 30 2010 02:10 jacen wrote: His book "Democracy. The god that isn't." is a critique of democracy and of democratic states/nations. Niether in family, church, science or economics there is democracy. Hoppe himself is advocating "freedom instead of democracy". of course, his english wikipedia page this quote and view is somewhat ... missing.
his german wikipedia site holds even more inhuman statements. will translate if hoppe keeps on advocating people exploiting others.
kinda funny though that i am an austrian and beeing here appalled by "the austrian method".
I don't understand, What's appalling?
I am appalled that he can advocate economic tyranny (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny) when every other advocation of tyranny (well in fact every other advocation of anti-democracy) is punishable here in austria and i believe in germany too.
Note that i use tyrant as such:
In common usage, the word "tyrant" carries connotations of a harsh and cruel ruler who places his or her own interests or the interests of a small oligarchy over the best interests of the general population, which the tyrant governs or controls.
EPT
