[ / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / imouto / kind / lewd / lit / lovelive / nofap / radcorp / s8s ]

/liberty/ - Liberty

Non-authoritarian Discussion of Politics, Society, News, and the Human Condition (Fun Allowed)

Catalog

Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Flag
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Oekaki
Show oekaki applet
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options
dicesidesmodifier
Password (For file and post deletion.)

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 12 MB.
Max image dimensions are 10000 x 10000.
You may upload 5 per post.


A recognized Safe Space for liberty - if you're triggered and you know it, clap your hands!

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.

 No.62606

This is the kind of shit I just love watching.

 No.62623

>>62606

Makes me think of all the times my dad told me that he is a socialist at home and a capitalist the rest of time. Richard Wolff plagiarized my own dad. Truly despicable.


 No.62627

>markets do not exist within the borders of a family

>therefore - they are not the ideal system for allocating factors of production as well as distributing the gains amongst the owners of these factors

>literally thinking that comparing an entity composed of few people to a global economy makes any sense and is a legitimate form of analysis

Where did this guy get his diploma from again?


 No.62631

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.

>>62606

Is he giving a lecture or acting out a play? Damn, he's going ham with the overly emotional delivery.

All action is economic action. You can't just drop something you think fundamentally contradicts market exchange and not explain how it works. "Love" is not a thing in itself. Why won't they stop it with the noumenons already. Continue your logic and ask why someone "loves". Why would someone do something for someone they neither value the well-being of, nor has personal motivation to? A completely unmotivated action with a purpose to self-harm. You don't "just" like someone a lot. The harsh reality is that we do nothing for free and receive nothing for free. If there is an original sin nobody is exempt to it is being unable to disobey the action axiom.

Also, the family unit is not something you can expand the boundaries of without limits. Not reason, biology will not allow it.

This was a shitty video and I won't be watching anything else from him again. If at least it were some new Leftist trite that we've never heard of it would have some value of being addressed.


 No.62633

>>62627

He would have a point if he were correct in his reasoning to begin with. You're only giving him a way out this way. The macro economy does not exist as a completely separate entity. It is a product of the micro economy and a "few" people is quite enough to form one.


 No.62636

File: 1ded116f89d1ec7⋯.png (387.79 KB, 989x576, 989:576, ideology2.png)

>>62633

>You're only giving him a way out this way.

How could it be that I am helping him? Please elaborate.

>>62631

While I think that you are fundamentally correct, I still oppose such rhetoric for the very fact that it will not convince people like Wolff or any other socialist. Their response would probably be that you are so deep into bourgeois ideology that you can think of feelings and sentiments like love, patriotism, friendship etc. as mere manifestations of some obscure, abstract "axiom of action", that you're willing and attempting to economize and commodify emotions. I don't think that we (even though I myself am not a libertarian, rather a classical liberal) should further the theory more then it should be, trying to employ praxeological means to explain phenomena such as feelings. Even Mises quite explicitely separated the study of feelings and general conditions of human beings (which he called thymology and which we now would probably refer to as psychology) from the study of purposeful human action (namely praxeology).

>[Thymology] is what a man knows about the way in which people value different conditions, about their wishes and desires and their plans to realize these wishes and desires. It is the knowledge of the social environment in which a man lives and acts or, with historians, of a foreign milieu about which he has learned by studying special sources.[2] Why one man chooses water and another man wine is a thymological (or, in traditional terminology, psychological) problem. But it is of no concern to praxeology and economics. The subject matter of praxeology and of that part of it which is so far best developed─economics─is action as such and not the motives that impel a man to aim at definite ends.[3]

To may way of thinking (and Mises' definition) love and other feelings are simply values that we ascribe to other people and these values govern the way we behave. In other words, the feeling of love is a psychological/thymological fact that has important praxeological implications for a person who experiences them - namely he/she is driven to spend as much time as possible with the object of one's desire.


 No.62640

>>62636

>How could it be that I am helping him?

While the actions of one group does not necessarily have to apply for the actions of a vast majority, economic analysis starts exactly at the micro level. The small group, being the family unit in this case, does indeed matter and we can draw conclusions that apply to the larger market as long as we observe some similarity in conditions. Wolf is attempting to apply its rules and conditions improperly by completely disregarding that the rest of humanity is not your family.


 No.62642

>>62636

>you're willing and attempting to economize and commodify emotions

They are the Materialists here so that doesn't work as a deflection.


 No.62645

>>62640

I am well aware of Austrian critique of macroeconomic thinking and certainly am not disillusioned with the presumed omnipotence of macroeconomics. But Wolff did it the other way around - he started with the global economy and its conditions, further "analysed" how the actions of family members differ from these of economic agents and concluded that if our economy fails we should try to make it so that it resembles family. So he did the opposite of what Austrian economics is all about. Needless to say, his will to replace egoistic motives of economic agents with altruistic virtues is futile and would ruin us all, since altruism may only be the basic motive of actions in small, isolated society that do not participate in foreign trade. But as economic relations develop and our small community no longer is self-sufficent we must engage in commerce with other people, some of which we wouldn't perhaps like to be our friends. You could say that a society of hunters-gatherers may be based upon altruism, but what happens when the shoes you buy in a store are made from Brazilian leather, have shoelaces from Russia and a have been assembled in Belgium? As production, specialization, division of labour and distribution progress, we become more alienated (to use Marxian terminology) and distant from those who produce the commodity we buy and in consequence altruism can no longer be the universal virtue upon you base your whole economic system since one is very unlikely to be altruistic towards a person one does not know at all. There is a great interview with Hayek on this subject: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJFsd2Nn-4o


 No.62651

>>62645

That's not a strictly Austrian method and Altruism is nothing but a buzzword. Being widely used does not mean I have to help propagate it as well. Marxist alienation does not apply that way because then he would have to give up on his concept of "free love".


 No.62660

>>62606

I don't, gotta take care of my blood pressure.


 No.62670

File: 89f725e7b6d8a13⋯.mp4 (2.58 MB, 640x360, 16:9, MDE World Peace - Good Gam….mp4)

>>62606

What the fuck am I actually watching?




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / imouto / kind / lewd / lit / lovelive / nofap / radcorp / s8s ]