KInsella and Thin Air

[George H. Smith]

I give up. You are free to remain as willfully ignorant as you like. And you are free to call the subjects I addressed in my economic calculation piece "political philosophy" or "chemistry" or "checkers" or "knitting" or anything else you like. Just spin everything out of your own head and pay no attention to what great minds have said on the subject of freedom. You already know everything you "need" to know, after all.

What we really "need" are well-informed libertarians who can defend freedom from a number of different perspectives. (You needn't worry that you will ever fall into this category.) Moral and political philosophy are fundamental to an adequate defense of a free society, but they are not sufficient. Mises exerted more influence with one book, Socialism, than you ever could in 100 lifetimes. But Mises didn't agree with you about rights, so he doesn't count, of course.

Lastly, your musings about minarchists and anarchists are as worthless as everything else you have said on this topic. But you don't "need" to know any of this.

Ghs

The only valuable defenders of liberty are those who blend in to *your* crowd, who pander to every perspective even when they disagree? What a self-serving and hypocritical remark. A simple question reduces you to a series of insults. That just lends credibility to my view.

It is a simple fact that some people do not need Human Action in order to grasp everything important about individual rights. This particular work is utterly and completely without value for these people (note that I don't include Mises' political theorizing -- those are quite valuable, just as Bastiat is, e.g. "Liberalism"). This causes you great grief, so much grief that you can't be bothered to try to answer the honest question: why? Why do some people not need praxeology and some do? Perhaps you know the answer and you don't find it flattering to those who need it. That at least is the impression you leave.

I use "economic" arguments, but only in order to cause anger at injustice. The only point is to underscore the damage caused by violating rights. Since some of the damage is economic, then "economic" arguments are relevant. But praxeology? What on earth is it good for in this realm? Or rather, why do some people find it useful to convince them that they should keep their hands to themselves, and others would keep their hands to themselves with or without praxeology?

Shayne

You don't even understand the difference between theory and tactics. Mises didn't write Human Action as a tactical guide for you. He wrote it to enhance our understanding of freedom. How particular libertarians use this understanding depends on a number of things, such as their special skills and the specific arguments they are addressing.

I am sick to death of dealing with your ignorance, which is both invincible and militant. Do I insult you? Good. You deserve to be insulted. You are a quack of the first order. Go pester someone else.

Ghs

[sjw]

You don't even understand the difference between theory and tactics. Mises didn't write Human Action as a tactical guide for you. He wrote it to enhance our understanding of freedom. How particular libertarians use this understanding depends on a number of things, such as their special skills and the specific arguments they are addressing.

I am sick to death of dealing with your ignorance, which is both invincible and militant. Do I insult you? Good. You deserve to be insulted. You are a quack of the first order. Go pester someone else.

Ghs

Very interesting responses. I definitely struck a nerve. That was not my intention. I guess it might have something to do with the fact that Human Action was at the top of your most important books. I suppose if someone made a case that it was an irrelevant book, even for some, then that might cause you grief.

Incidentally, I don't take insult as I think your insults are more beneficial to my position than they are to yours.

Shayne

[sjw]

Shayne is happy with his one-truck pony respecting rights' justification, but liberal arts was necessary for the invention and propagation of rights' doctrine and I suspect necessary to re-establish same.

--Brant

Utter nonsense. Kindly stop trying to speak for me. You only seem to grasp about half of what I say. Actually I think you are schizophrenic.

Shayne

My favorite review of my book so far:

"Objectivism combines morality with politics with the emphasis on

morality. Libertarianism combines nothing with next to nothing--that

is even the politics gets weak in the hands of libertarians because

they can talk politics all day long without referencing individual

rights once. Reason magazine has done this for decades. You combine

politics and ethics with one hard ball centered on individual

rights--that is, it's wrong to violate individual rights, but I'm not

going to tell you not to cheat on your wife or what art to like just

honor your contractural word and don't initiate force against other

human beings. I'm intrigued by what I think is your approach because

the Objectivist approach seems to attenuate itself like a wave hitting

the beach but yours seems bad-ass hard and probably effective if

enough people agree with you take that ball and run with it. The

problem with your approach right now, if I've got it right, is I now

have to examine it empirically and that's a lot of ground to cover."

Shayne

[Brant Gaede]

Shayne is happy with his one-truck pony respecting rights' justification, but liberal arts was necessary for the invention and propagation of rights' doctrine and I suspect necessary to re-establish same.

--Brant

Utter nonsense. Kindly stop trying to speak for me. You only seem to grasp about half of what I say. Actually I think you are schizophrenic.

Shayne

My favorite review of my book so far:

"Objectivism combines morality with politics with the emphasis on

morality. Libertarianism combines nothing with next to nothing--that

is even the politics gets weak in the hands of libertarians because

they can talk politics all day long without referencing individual

rights once. Reason magazine has done this for decades. You combine

politics and ethics with one hard ball centered on individual

rights--that is, it's wrong to violate individual rights, but I'm not

going to tell you not to cheat on your wife or what art to like just

honor your contractural word and don't initiate force against other

human beings. I'm intrigued by what I think is your approach because

the Objectivist approach seems to attenuate itself like a wave hitting

the beach but yours seems bad-ass hard and probably effective if

enough people agree with you take that ball and run with it. The

problem with your approach right now, if I've got it right, is I now

have to examine it empirically and that's a lot of ground to cover."

Shayne

What I wrote doesn't contradict the other stuff. The hard-core theoretical is surrounded and informed and re-enforced by many disciplines all dealing with human beings from different perspectives. My point is the Objectivist emphasis on morality with rights getting second place has resulted in a jejune enterprise while a stronger rights' orientation better informs rational self-interest than letting morality simply flow out of the epistemology. If Rand had only gotten on a Thomas Paine soapbox and kept saying rights this and rights that and--oh by the way--I've got this Objectivist philosophy to go along with it, if you want it, but if you don't it's still rights, rights, rights--that's what this country is all about!--she wouldn't have driven away the libertarians and would have embarrassed the hell out of the conservatives.

Sorry you aren't happy with your one-trick pony. I really thought you were but it seems you've yet to make up your mind. I used that formulation because you don't seem to be an Objectivist or have a philosophical orientation beyond rights. But that''s all right for it's still rights, rights, rights regardless.

--Brant

[nskinsella]

The libertarian is never JUST a libertarian; liberty (property, rights, whatever) is not our "only" value. It is not even our "top" value, whatever that means.

Do you have a "top" (= supreme) value then? If yes, which is it?

I don't think this way. I'm not from California, after all.

It is just that we oppose aggression--we believe aggression is unjust. Period.

Now it it would interest me what exactly you do (in that anarcho-capitalist utopia of yours) to make sure not to become the victim of aggression. Since you seem to reject the idea of a state as an institution watching over order, what do you do? Keep a loaded gun ready all the time?

How to stop and combat aggression is merely a technical problem, like the problem of disease, wild animals, tornadoes, and the like. Not the demesne of political science. I don't think the state is particularly efficient at stopping private crime--in fact it causes more of it (e.g. the drug war) AND it adds to it to boot with its own crime (taxing people, bombing people, and so on).

[sjw]

What I wrote doesn't contradict the other stuff. The hard-core theoretical is surrounded and informed and re-enforced by many disciplines all dealing with human beings from different perspectives. My point is the Objectivist emphasis on morality with rights getting second place has resulted in a jejune enterprise while a stronger rights' orientation better informs rational self-interest than letting morality simply flow out of the epistemology. If Rand had only gotten on a Thomas Paine soapbox and kept saying rights this and rights that and--oh by the way--I've got this Objectivist philosophy to go along with it, if you want it, but if you don't it's still rights, rights, rights--that's what this country is all about!--she wouldn't have driven away the libertarians and would have embarrassed the hell out of the conservatives.

When you hit the mark you really hit the mark.

Sorry you aren't happy with your one-trick pony. I really thought you were but it seems you've yet to make up your mind. I used that formulation because you don't seem to be an Objectivist or have a philosophical orientation beyond rights. But that''s all right for it's still rights, rights, rights regardless.

And when you don't you don't. I don't know what you are talking about. I'm sure you'd make more sense in person. You don't seem to put a lot of effort into making your posts make sense. You make brilliant off the cuff remarks mixed in with what the hell.

Shayne

[Brant Gaede]

What I wrote doesn't contradict the other stuff. The hard-core theoretical is surrounded and informed and re-enforced by many disciplines all dealing with human beings from different perspectives. My point is the Objectivist emphasis on morality with rights getting second place has resulted in a jejune enterprise while a stronger rights' orientation better informs rational self-interest than letting morality simply flow out of the epistemology. If Rand had only gotten on a Thomas Paine soapbox and kept saying rights this and rights that and--oh by the way--I've got this Objectivist philosophy to go along with it, if you want it, but if you don't it's still rights, rights, rights--that's what this country is all about!--she wouldn't have driven away the libertarians and would have embarrassed the hell out of the conservatives.

When you hit the mark you really hit the mark.

Sorry you aren't happy with your one-trick pony. I really thought you were but it seems you've yet to make up your mind. I used that formulation because you don't seem to be an Objectivist or have a philosophical orientation beyond rights. But that''s all right for it's still rights, rights, rights regardless.

And when you don't you don't. I don't know what you are talking about. I'm sure you'd make more sense in person. You don't seem to put a lot of effort into making your posts make sense. You make brilliant off the cuff remarks mixed in with what the hell.

My poor, demented 96 yo Mother has been giving me trouble all day. Not to make excuses, but everything is fragmented for me into very short segments. She hasn't had a bite of solid food in two months and I can't get enough Ensure into her to keep her from slowly starving to death. Right now OL is a nice change of pace, but she's crying in her bed and that's distracting and I've got to go to her.

--Brant

leave the gun, bring the cannolis

Edited December 6, 2010 by Brant Gaede

[Brant Gaede]

Well, my brilliance to you simply comes from your enterprise because I wasn't turning this stuff out before you got me thinking about it.

--Brant

[sjw]

Sorry Brant.

Shayne

[Brant Gaede]

Thanks. Best be sorry, though, for 50 years of Objectivism gone wrong. If I was so smart I'd have figured this out decades ago.

--Brant

[Xray]

Do you have a "top" (= supreme) value then? If yes, which is it?

I don't think this way. I'm not from California, after all.

I'm from Europe and don't get the California joke. TIA for explaining.

So am I correct in assuming that you don't have some immutable "ultimate" value heading the list of your values?

My own theory is that, while we do have hierarchy of values, this hierarchy is not rigid. Which is why we, in any given situation, without exception, always decide in favor of that value we hold highest at the moment of choice.

How to stop and combat aggression is merely a technical problem, like the problem of disease, wild animals, tornadoes, and the like. Not the demesne of political science.

I think you underestimate the problem of how to deal with human aggression by putting it on the same level with insentient nature (tornadoes, diseases) and wild animals not remotely having the mental capacities of homo sapiens sapiens.

The word combination you used: "combat aggression" leads us right to the core of the issue: for doesn't "combatting aggression" imply aggressive acts as well?

In addition, aggression is an integral part of human nature. Just watch kids playing in the sandbox and you'll get the picture.

For reasons of survival, we need the ability to be aggressive just as we need the ability to be cooperative.

I don't think the state is particularly efficient at stopping private crime--

in fact it causes more of it (e.g. the drug war) AND it adds to it to boot with its own crime (taxing people, bombing people, and so on).

The state may not be particularly efficient, but how is anarchy going to work? Criticizing one model as not functioning well does not automatically establish its contrary as functioning any better.

Humans simply cannot function without rules, and even in a "non-statist" society, you would be faced with the task of establishing rules and with enforcing them if necessary.

Saying one is against aggression is one thing, but what exactly are you going to do when faced with aggression?

Imagine this fictional scene in some 'Anarchotopia': Jim and John are having a heated debate which escalates to a point where Jim calls John names and even spits him in the face. (I deliberately chose a scenario involving no life-threatening actions justifying aggressive acts for reasons of self-defense).

So what does John do? You said stopping and combatting aggression is merely a technical problem, so what technique does John apply? I'm afraid if John merely telling Jim that "aggression is unjust" won't help with a type who is aggressive enough to spit. So what would you, as an anarchist, do in John's place?

Edited December 7, 2010 by Xray

[nskinsella]

Do you have a "top" (= supreme) value then? If yes, which is it?

I don't think this way. I'm not from California, after all.

I'm from Europe and don't get the California joke. TIA for explaining.

I'm mocking the California-esque new-agey touchy-feelly BS typical of liberal arts types, and contrasting it wiht my superior, down to earth, engineering-rationalist background.

So am I correct in assuming that you don't have some immutable "ultimate" value heading the list of your values?

My own theory is that, while we do have hierarchy of values, this hierarchy is not rigid. Which is why we, in any given situation, without exception, always decide in favor of that value we hold highest at the moment of choice.

You seem to be reinventing the Misesian idea of demonstrated preference (which finds a mirror in Rand's concept of value as something you ACT to gain and/or keep -- there are many parallels, as I note in Mises and Rand (and Rothbard)).

How to stop and combat aggression is merely a technical problem, like the problem of disease, wild animals, tornadoes, and the like. Not the demesne of political science.

I think you underestimate the problem of how to deal with human aggression by putting it on the same level with insentient nature (tornadoes, diseases) and wild animals not remotely having the mental capacities of homo sapiens sapiens.

I made no claim as to which was harder, nor that they are the same or "on the same level" whatever that means. but they are just technical problems, nonetheless; and no doubt there would be specialists for each.

The word combination you used: "combat aggression" leads us right to the core of the issue: for doesn't "combatting aggression" imply aggressive acts as well?

No. Aggression is initiated force. Combatting aggression is force in response to aggression--it is responsive, not initiatory. I discuss further in my What Libertarianism Is.

In addition, aggression is an integral part of human nature. Just watch kids playing in the sandbox and you'll get the picture.

For reasons of survival, we need the ability to be aggressive just as we need the ability to be cooperative.

This is, perhaps unintentionally, equivocation. the libertarian opposes aggression, meaning initiated force. (That's how Rand defined it too.) But you are using it here as a synonym for force. Yes, force is justified in some cases, but not aggression.

I don't think the state is particularly efficient at stopping private crime--

in fact it causes more of it (e.g. the drug war) AND it adds to it to boot with its own crime (taxing people, bombing people, and so on).

The state may not be particularly efficient, but how is anarchy going to work? Criticizing one model as not functioning well does not automatically establish its contrary as functioning any better.

Your asking or having a question aobut how anarchy is "going to work" is not a justification for aggression.

Humans simply cannot function without rules, and even in a "non-statist" society, you would be faced with the task of establishing rules and with enforcing them if necessary.

correc,t this is why anarchists are not against property, law, order, rules, and defensive force.

Saying one is against aggression is one thing, but what exactly are you going to do when faced with aggression?

it's a technical question. Sometimes submit; sometimes die; sometimes fight and win; sometimes use arguments; sometimes call on negihbors; sometimes use locks; sometimes avoid situations.

[bmacwilliam]

You seem to be reinventing the Misesian idea of demonstrated preference (which finds a mirror in Rand's concept of value as something you ACT to gain and/or keep -- there are many parallels, as I note in Mises and Rand (and Rothbard)).

I think drawing parallels here does a great disservice to Mises. Mises gives a clear, simple and concise explanation of human values and rational action and implications. Rand, in contrast, has to jump through all sorts of nonsensical hoops in "emergencies" situations that render her ethics/morality DOA.

Bob