/liberty/ - Liberty

>>77718

>only edgy teenagers

<how do you do comrade! come have lunch with us at the communism table

>>77718

>lmao brainlets

>edgy teenagers

You sound like one.Try harder next time. We've had two thorough threads on him.

>>77719

He's not a Libertarian nor identifies as one. This is as low effort as it gets.

>>77720

>theres this one guy that isnt austrian there for 99% internet ancaps arent retarded

>>77742

No, othordox is not (that) communism. I know you are one though. Unite against le CAPITALISTS comrade!

fuck off

>>77742

Take out mexicans and blacks and the USA does better than almost every other country in almost every metric.

>>77748

read a book, you retarded redneck, I refuse engaging with your autism

http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/whyaust.htm

https://openstax.org/subjects/

>>77783

>My ideas are so broken I cant actually use them in a debate I have to refer you to a book

>>77748

Now, I am no expert on economics. But to say that ALL "busts" happen because of government intervention is nuts and lacks thorough proof to back up your own analysis. Sure it is true that some governments have on the record collapsed the economy (just look at the former communist countries for example). But to say they are always the fact of government intervention I think is incredibly dishonest chipping out on honest debate.

>>77718

>http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/whyaust.htm

You posted this exact article in another thread and I responded to you in that thread. We also have an entire thread of our own on it, in which we rip the thing apart.

>I bet you retards don't even know picrelated lmao brainlets

Did you write that to bait me? Because I'm taking any chance I get to voice my disapproval of Rawls. His whole philosophy was stillborn, it was a tangled mess of one "what if" following another but with no first principles to give his ruminations any relevancy. His philosophy was completely unoriginal, an apologetic for the New Deal written long after the New Deal was already enacted.

I've read the entirety of A Theory of Justice. It pretty much confirmed what I already suspected after hearing about it in lectures: That Rawls' argument does not really prove anything. A bunch of ghosts with no pasts and no personality sits down and decides how to build a society that is to each ones egoistic interests; the result is somehow the just society. Why? The whole "thought experiment" is set up to prove what Rawls wanted to prove. And it's not even a didactic tool, the "Veil of Ignorance" is Rawls premise. He does not use it to demonstrate something to us that he proves in another way, it is his proof, but neither is it linked to the conclusions (a classical non sequitur), nor did Rawls justify his premises.

Two last things on this. First, remember what Rawls said about intergenerational justice? Between his original treatise and the revised edition, he discovered that his thought experiment does not account for it. Therefore, he added in the revised edition that those in the original position do not know which generation they will be born into. In his words:

>The one case where this conclusion fails is that of saving. Since the persons in the original position know that

they are contemporaries (taking the present time of entry interpretation), they can favor their generation by refusing to make any sacrifices at all for their successors; they simply acknowledge the principle that no one has a duty to save for posterity. Previous generations have saved or they have not; there is nothing the parties can now do to affect that. So in this instance the veil of ignorance fails to secure the desired result. Therefore, to handle the question of justice between generations, I modify the motivation assumption and add a further constraint (§22). With these adjustments,

no generation is able to formulate principles especially designed to advance its own cause and some significant limits on savings principles can be derived (§44).

>The one case where this conclusion fails

>So in this instance the veil of ignorance fails to secure the desired result. Therefore, to handle the question of justice between generations, I modify the motivation assumption and add a further constraint (§22).

This shows very clearly that Rawls argued from his conclusions to his premises, which, you may notice, is exactly how you don't do it. The conclusions follow from the premises, not the other way around, and while unacceptable conclusions can and should tick us off that something was wrong with our thinking, Rawls takes this to whole new and ridiculous levels here. He does not think "oh, something here must be amiss, I better check over my premises", he thinks: "My premises don't lead me where I want them to lead me, I'll just change them". It's as if a natural scientist came up with a fully developed theory and then wrote down his observations.

Two, Rawls on time-preference: He said it is irrational. He mistook praxeology for psychology, which is a mistake a beginner would make. The question of whether it is irrational to have a time-preference is as nonsensical as the question of whether we should respect the law of marginal utility. So not only did Rawls use a methodology that would make any legitimate philosopher cry out to the heavens, he also just plain didn't know what he was talking about.

I don't even care if it's bait. Any chance to bash Rawls is a chance to be taken, until he becomes as irrelevant as such rising stars as Robert Filmer and Celsus. The chances for that are good, because no one seems to read Rawls for his merits as a philosopher, but only for his merit of being a philosopher who shares his opinion and is beloved by Harvard.

>>77719

>https://recoveringaustrians.wordpress.com/top-ten-austrian-economic-lies-and-mistakes/

>recoveringaustrians

Now, that's what I call drama. I looked at the list, but it's polemical and uninspired.

>>77986

>But to say that ALL "busts" happen because of government intervention is nuts and lacks thorough proof to back up your own analysis.

The booms happen because of government intervention. The bust is the market reasserting itself.

>But to say they are always the fact of government intervention I think is incredibly dishonest chipping out on honest debate.

Why? We have laid out our whole reasoning, our methods, premises, and then described our conclusions in detail. Before Mises talks about the BCT, he writes a good 150 pages on methodology, including why he thinks that economic laws can only be discovered by a priori reasoning, and which place observations and other empirical data have in economic science. Even if our conclusions were wrong, this would not be dishonest. A wrong conclusion is not dishonesty, it's just being wrong. A wrong methodology is not necessarily dishonest, either, it's just using a wrong methodology. Dishonesty would be if our methodology was inconsistent or intransparent and we claimed the opposite.

>>77990

Would the tulipmania from the 1600's be a result of government meddling or just speculation. I know government fucks up in modern times but even without a government would we still have specualtion of that kind?

Anyone who endorses "freedom", in any form, after the age of 12 is stunted. Smart people capable of robust reasoning eventually figure out that the borg is the logical outcome of ethics, and we embrace the borg.

>>77989

Fuggen A+ post

>>77997

Now that is some superb bait.

>read a book

>amerimutt

>brainlet

>haha btfo

>lmao

The absolute state of /leftypol/

Libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism both have their limits. So does austrian economics. Problem is that OP isn't aware of them, nor are the usual mainstream critics.

To find decent rebuttals of austrian economics or libertarian thesis you have to go dig deep, and if you're lucky you'll find something that has a decent point. But that stuff is rare.

And yes, I wish those who speak about austrian economics/libertarianism and have a big audience would give more space to good criticism. But just because they don't do it, it doesn't mean they're always wrong. And the sad part is that if they do give space to good critics, people with small brain will take it as a sign of complete defeat and will start shouting "libertardian pwneeed, we woon!!" and they'll make everyone miserable. So, maybe there is a reason good critics aren't given any space.

Also it's not like those mainstream guys give autrian/libertarians any space. In fact basically all of them are such pussies that they don't even take the time to put a youtube video up or something equivalent. They close themselves in their circlejerk, those obscure academic journals and that's it. You can't compare them to those who make their positions available to everyone so that they can studied, criticized and improved.

Of course it's better if they don't really show what they think, what their nasty philosophies and economics really are, because as long as they hide them from the public, they don't have to face the public knowing what piece of shit they are, as people and intellectuals.

>>77783

>Why I Am Not an Austrian Economist

>.edu

Yeah, I know why. He wants to keep his job at the university and have a good and easy career as an intellectual. That's it.

>openstax

>taking the teaching of economics written by people financed by Bill Gates and his nigger loving wife seriously

Look, libertarianism is far from perfect, and so it's austrian economics. But just because they aren't perfect doesn't mean that mainstream economics is complete shit. Really, it's like saying "this pasta isn't well cooked, let's eat sand instead". Total nonsense.

Bill Gates is the kind of guy that loves big government and everything mainstream. He would never give money to spread a truly controversial opinion.

>>78030

>good and easy career as an intellectual

lmao

>>78030

>To find decent rebuttals of austrian economics or libertarian thesis you have to go dig deep, and if you're lucky you'll find something that has a decent point. But that stuff is rare.

I haven't found a conclusive rebuttal yet, only some that raised good points. As you yourself say, those are already rare enough.

>And yes, I wish those who speak about austrian economics/libertarianism and have a big audience would give more space to good criticism.

Only one I can think of is perhaps the critique of Rothbardianism written by Edward Feser, as petty as it was. I'm not aware of others, which is probably because of what you mention next.

>Also it's not like those mainstream guys give autrian/libertarians any space. In fact basically all of them are such pussies that they don't even take the time to put a youtube video up or something equivalent. They close themselves in their circlejerk, those obscure academic journals and that's it. You can't compare them to those who make their positions available to everyone so that they can studied, criticized and improved.

I've almost never seen someone who's not a libertarian and had even a passable knowledge of it, either the economic or ethical aspect. At best, they've read Ayn Rand, Robert Nozick or Milton Friedman. So, I can confirm exactly what you say here.

>>77742

>another conflating niggers/spics with Americans shill infograph

see

>>77750

lol, why does it seem like every thread on the liberty board is attacking liberty ?

"philosophically illiterate" nice term

>>78083

Because communism can only exist by stealing from the productive.

>>78083

Because the rise of any movement creates a reactionary movement. Just take all these kids crawling out of the woodwork as a sign that we're onto something.

>>78125

So having a state do that is somehow better?

>>78125

There is no "surplus value".

>>78030

>hahah I have no counter arguments, your sources are OFFFICIAL and ACADEMIC, and marxist leftist probably too haha, yuropoors BTFO

>I literally cited an ancap BTFOing austrian "economics"

>>78040

You realize Nozick is the only academic libertarian in existence right? Jesus christ, americans everyone…

>>78250

>You realize Nozick is the only academic libertarian in existence right?

That's wrong, though. They've all earned their degrees, in economics, philosophy, law, or whatever you have. Ludwig von Mises earned a doctor juris in the University of Vienna, and he attended lectures on economics for a full decade, and it was in large part thanks to his theories that Hayek earned a Nobel Prize. Murray Rothbard earned a Bachelor of Arts in mathematics (le Austrian Economists can't into math xD) and a PhD in economics at Columbia University. Hans-Hermann Hoppe earned a PhD in philosophy in the Goethe University Frankfurt, where he studied under Jürgen Habermas. Tom Woods earned a PhD in history at Columbia University. Robert Murphy received a PhD in economics from Columbia University. Jesús Huerta de Soto also has a PhD in economics, from Complutense University.

What makes Nozick notable is that he is the only Harvard-schooled libertarian. Which brings me to this:

>Jesus christ, americans everyone…

You don't seem to know there are universities that aren't Ivy League. That is Americanism at its worst. Austrian Economics used to be respectable outside the US, you know? Mises taught the freaking Crown Prince of Austro-Hungary! But because he wasn't at Harvard or Yales, you ignore his very obvious credentials?

>>78287

You retard, you know what i meant. Literally no current or past philosopher takes your retarded ideology seriously. Nozick is your best shot, and he got debunked a million times. Rothtard has contributed ZERO to economics, only heterodox philosophizing and whining.

Mises same, he was hayek without the philosophy, ie, nothing. Hoppe is a nobody in academia, only written some obscure autrian garbage noone cares about.

Austrian "economics" never was respectable, maybe in the 50s or so when economics wasn't fully developed.

If academics care about praxeology, how come there are no respected lolberg journals with a high impact factor? or even lower: that are cited outside of their own circlejerk?

Thats right, zero. There is a reason for that, the invisible hand has decided.

>>78403

> Literally no current or past philosopher takes your retarded ideology seriously.

Even if that were true this would only be an appeal to popularity.

In fact, everything you have said so far seems to indicate that you just like masturbating to whatever currently constitutes as the public opinion parroting your views.

>>78403

>There's only one academic libertarians

>"Here's a list of libertarian academics"

>FUCK YOU THEY DONT COUNT REEEEEEEEEE

Anyone replying honestly to a poster who says "lmao brainlets" should seriously consider never returning to this board.

>>78823

/thread

>>78823

Why? I knew he was a retard, but if a retard attracts an audience by reciting the Communist Manifesto, then why shouldn't we respond to him? It's not for his sake, for he's clearly not capable of engaging in a rational discussions, but for the audience, the people who might learn something from my rebuttal.

>>80962

>The truth is scientific consensus

So do you believe in (((climate change)))?