So principles providing a knowledge base, those principles are epistemological?
Yes, I believe that statement is sound.
Thank you very much
I just want to let you know that these blog posts are awesome! I have some knowledge of mythology and history and agree with you on all points. Though you've been able to emphasize the long standing epistemological aspects that, to be honest, I don't see much of anywhere and I think it is extremely significant. History provides a very good orientation spectrum not only on how ideas evolve, but how many ideas actually stick with a civilization. The nature cross-overs into other parts of the world, such as Laozi in a previous blog post of yours, reveals the finer universals. I could go on, but I don't won't to burst the ecstatic nature of my response. Oh, and by the way, I would have to say climate scientists (the weatherman on TV or radio) were actually one of the first to tip me off on how phony some things in this culture are but everyday I can still hear people say, "It's going to rain cause that's what the weatherman said." And then it doesn't rain but they still take full faith in their predictions. I find I am way more accurate on planning a camping trip nearby if it has been raining and I don't know if it will stop anytime soon or not - when I go online to a satellite map and check it out for myself. It has something to do with my personal recognition of the weather patterns in my region first hand, and then seeing the map. I usually get a better estimation on what will happen. But I'm not always accurate, but I find doing it that way is way more accurate than the super brief time a weather forecaster offers.
Good post!
Sentence Error, 3rd sentence should read:
"Though you've been able to emphasize the long standing epistemological aspects that, to be honest, I have not seen much of and that is significant. Cause I think it is important and I'm glad you are covering this area. History provides a very good..."
Hi wilderness,
Thanks very much!
It really is something how a lot of these basic ideas repeatedly crop up independently throughout the world. That either says something about the truth value of those ideas, about the way the human mind works, or a little of both.
Have you read any of Joseph Campbell's books?
No, I haven't; though the name rings a bell...
Lilburne - great post. Really. Strong and drives the
stake through Krugman's defense.
Thanks for the post :)
yes, I'm thinking that this would make a great Mises Daily. What do you think?
I would DEFINITELY be up for that, Jeffrey. I'm on the road, but I'll shoot you an email as soon as I get home. Thanks!
Very cool idea. Sounds like a great way to digest a book, then cook up the ideas in your own words, and receive feedback from others to see if your understanding has any flaws.
I was planning on reading Human Action or Man, Economy, State soon. I thought it would be cool to live blog these tomes, but then I remembered Murphy already did something akin to a live bog in his Study Guides.
Perhaps I will do it anyways, just for the sake of redundancy and as a self learning exercise. No matter if anyone else reads it, for it's main purpose will be as a tool to help organize my thoughts.
Who knows maybe it will turn out completely different than Murphy's guides.
PS - Nice article on Krugman today, it's what directed me to your blog. This post in particular is quite a jewel!
Good ideas are never scarce at mises.org, it would only make sense that they should offer all their wonderful works free of charge.
Thanks Coury,
I completely agree with you that the learning value of blogging a book alone makes it worth doing, even if no one else reads it. I'm reading The Positive Theory of Capital by Bohm-Bawerk right now, and I keep thinking, "I bet if I blogged this chapter by chapter, I'd understand it much more clearly". Maybe I'll get around to doing just that. But I still have a few chapter of Menger I never quite got to, so I guess that would come first.
This is an excellent point. Communists of higher order economies, such as the U.S., don't understand scarcity.
So wealth is the expansion of higher order goods? Wealth is the expansion of diversity of economic goods? That's prosperity? As opposed to the 'muddle-headed economists' of today that think an increase of economic goods is prosperity, not the diversity of economic goods, but the expansion of current economic goods?
Wealth is also an expansion of lower order goods. It's the diversity concept I was trying to get at.
correct?
If I understand this correctly, then the higher interest rates create a bust and jobs are lost during that time. Yet interest rates are low now and jobs are being lost. So if the fed raised interest rates, more jobs would be lost than at the current pace. If so, then the fed really doesn't have any options left other than to extend the misery and at some point in time something will need to give. The economy purged of malinvestments or the dollars plunges in value.
congrats
["breathed into me a divine voice to celebrate things that shall be and things there were aforetime"
Here we see evidence of what I believe is a fundamental monist materialism in archaic Greek thought. The divine voice is not a purely psychic power: it is a material breath which can be transferred via literal exhalation of the Muse and literal inhalation of the poet. ] – Lilburne
Why monist materialism? Why isn't this analogy? If this is monist materialism, then the whole poem exhibits not anthropomorphism but its exact inverse. Or am I missing the point?
jpg
It seems to me that Hesiod was trying to formulate a reasonable mechanical cosmology, but necessarily couched in anthropomorphized terms.
As I said in another post:
"Taken thus, Hesiod's Theogony exemplifies many important strands in the history of thought regarding "natural history". In the Theogony, there is no one special creator, and no single instance of creation. Instead there is a gradual process of generation and change.
Of course for all his systematic and rational presentation, Hesiod still had his "Time" entity literally castrate his "Sky" entity with a flint sickle. His audience expected the interpersonal saga of epic poetry, and this necessitated that his cosmic powers have distinctly human characteristics."
I see.
No ganglia derranged, I hope.
No, my grey matter is a-ok. :)
(Inside joke alert)
Very interesting post. I especially like how you point out the links between Aristotle and Austrian theory. If you haven't already, you should check out Roderick Long's "Wittgenstein, Austrian Economics, and the Logic of Action" (available here: www.mises.org/.../long.pdf), especially the last chapter on Socrates and praxeological ethics. It really builds on the link between the classical eudaimonists and the Austrian School.
Nice article. If I may summarize my understanding of your points, "natural law" is most correctly understood as a system of legal precepts based on those inborn moral urges of human beings that are preponderantly universal. It is useful to libertarians because of its preponderant universality, and is therefore likely to be adopted in an anarchic free market in law (or should be upheld by a minarchist government if it wants retain legitimacy in the eyes of the governed). Natural law is of course adopted for consequentialist reasons.
Since the final end is happiness, which despite some universality is highly personal, ends cannot be determined logically or universally. Insofar as they are advocated to individuals, moral precepts that ignore consequences cannot be derived logically, and any attempt such as Rothbard's must necessarily fail. The urge to derive non-consequentialist moral precepts logically is based on a misunderstanding of what such moral notions are: simply Hume's "passions." In other words, it's silly to try to derive logically that X action is morally wrong, when such is tantamount to trying to derive logically something like, "X action makes YOU feel bad inside." Of course, we can argue that people are evolutionarily inclined to feel bad inside if they perform such an action, but that is a scientific and not a logical argument. In other words, science may be able to demonstrate a (preponderantly universal) natural inborn sense of moral aversion to an act, so in some sense non-consequentialist moral precepts can be derived if we define them in that scientific sense (and each person would only do that if they were moved by that argument - after all, someone could easily argue that just because it's in our instinctive nature that is no LOGICAL reason to adhere to it; it is merely a persuasive argument).
Am I reading you correctly? If so, I believe we agree, at least fundamentally. Let's discuss this on the forums if you're interested.
Nice article. If I may summarize my understanding of your points, "natural law" is most correctly understood as a system of legal precepts based on those inborn moral urges of human beings that are preponderantly universal. It is useful to libertarians because of its preponderant universality, and is therefore likely to be adopted in an anarchic free market in law (or should be upheld by a minarchist government if it wants to retain legitimacy in the eyes of the governed). Natural law is of course adopted for consequentialist reasons, if it correctly adopted for any logical reasons at all.
-AJ [edited]
Awesome article... it should be printed in every business magazine and newspaper across the country. We need a president like Andrew Jackson today - one that will stand up and fight for what is right, not just succumb to the greedy banker whores.
What an amazing article! That is high quality literature, althought long, it never gets boring. Congrats Lilburne! Hope it becomes a daily article article at Mises.org.
Lilburne,
You are doing fine work. I enjoy voice recording what ever you have written.
If this youTube has not already appeared on LRC Blog, could you submit it to Lew?
Thanking you, Floy Lilley
I found your article "For a New Libertarian Ethics" very interesting. However, I think your interpretation of Rothbard's position is incorrect in a number of areas, as are the conclusions you draw. I would make the following points:
1. When Rothbard says, "For the ends themselves are selected by the use of reason", he doesn't mean the ends are the PRODUCT of reason. I think Rothbard would be the first to acknowledge that ends spring from wants, feelings, needs, or "passions" if you wish to call them that. As Mises makes very clear in HA, ultimate ends are irrational. They are not the product of reason; they are simply givens for which praxeology has no explanation. They are a psychological phenomenon. But at any given time, man has many wants, many passions, not all of which can be satisfied. And so to answer the question of which particular end to pursue, and which to discard, man must use reason. This is why Rothbard says ends are SELECTED by reason. For example, I might have a desire to eat chocolate cake, or make love, both of which spring from passion, but I must use reason to decide which one to do at any given time. I might have a desire to get high on heroin, but only reason tells me that doing so won't be good for me, at least not in the long run.
2. You quote Rothbard as follows, "The natural law, then, elucidates what is best for man -- what ends man should pursue that are most harmonious with, and best tend to fulfill, his nature" But why is this problematical? Why criticize Rothbard for eschewing methodological individualism? Methodological individualism is the process by which we analyze the class by looking at the individuals comprising the class. And in praxeology this makes sense. But in ethics, we're asking a completely different question. Here we ask, not what is the process by which men act, but rather how should they act and why? The use of methodological individualism is inappropriate in this task, so it's really not fair to criticize Rothbard for "eschewing" it. After all, Robinson Crusoe has no need for ethics, at least not until Friday comes along. Rothbard doesn't say the natural law arises because any action by an individual, that is in accordance with the natural law, will always be good for that individual. It is obvious there are instances where this is not the case. You give an example of such a case yourself. Rothbard is suggesting that individual men, by analyzing their own nature, can use reason to figure out that, in general, social cooperation is best not only for mankind, but also best for themselves as individuals; not in every case of course, but in general. How does this come about? Because aside from the logical structure of his mind, a particular person is always unique. As a result, he stands to gain the most in a system that promotes the division of labor and social cooperation. All of this is in keeping with his nature.
3. When Rothbard says, "For in natural-law ethics, ends are demonstrated to be good or bad for man in varying degrees; value here is objective -- determined by the natural law of man's being.", you are right in saying this is prescriptive. But by definition, ethics are always prescriptive, so why the criticism? Furthermore, this is not a normative prescription, nor a utilitarian one. It is not subjective in any way. It is utterly objective and rational. The natural law is, in a sense, a technological prescription for living that is in accordance with what is good for mankind, and by extension the individual. It has to be discovered. And it's also right because it is the only system of ethics that can be both UNIVERSALLY applied and EQUALLY applied. It is the only moral code where we can say to everyone, “You must abide by it” and be confident that, in its application, the rights of everyone will be the same. In fact it is impossible to conceive of any other moral code that, when universally applied, does not result in either an unequal application of rights (masters and slaves), or an unworkable situation (absolute universal communism). Here we see again why the natural law is rational and objective.
-LD
If you could extrapolate this theory to Liberty, how would you explain the lack of Liberty urge in most individuals?
This is an excellent piece, and it is finely written. As pretty much a layperson to Libertarianism, the emphasis on property rights in a manifesto, to me, is puzzling. I just sort of take it as a given. I've never really thought about the boundaries of it.
Life, liberty, and the persuit f happiness are all vague, but purposefully so. Property rights starts getting specific, but I have no idea what the scope is. You certainly can't own people, but you sort of own your children (and spouse?) Maybe vested comes into play there. Owned doesn't sound right.
To assert it in a manifesto... does that mean it is missing and you are striving for it, or are you reaffirming?
I think your suggestion of a personal manifesto is excellent. This could take a bit.
<a>www.gene-callahan.org/.../a>
scineram, According to Callahan, Hoppe equates time-preference with morality. I, on the other hand, am equating it with character. And in my post, I am very careful to distinguish character from morality.
This distinction seems useful on one hand, but on the other we would do well not to lose sight of the fact that our conscience does bug us a lot. People often say they do things to avoid feeling guilty later (guilt from within, as you note), as well as to avoid disapproval from others, authority, or God (guilt from without), or ostracism, or legal consequences, and to avoid having to lie later (more consequences).
All of these are a type of pain, so it seems the distinction you are speaking of constitutes a classification of pain into conscience-induced and non-conscience-induced. Our built-in conscious protects us before the fact and impels us to make reparations after the fact.
Also, many people feel guilty for having a high time-preference.
Cleaning up the last two sentences:
Our built-in conscience protects us before the fact and impels us to make reparations after the fact.
Also, many people feel guilty for having a high time-preference, so in that sense, there is often conscience-induced pain for those for those holding high time preferences.
I feel somewhat bad that I am not posting my own manifesto after reading yours, but it isn't ready to see the light of day, but you did manage to inspire me to dust it off (not literally, as it is a computer document) and get back to work.
My main problem with your description of Krugman is that you called him a neo-Keynesian. Krugman isn't a neo-Keynesian like Greg Mankiw, he is a plain vanilla Keynesian, just like the Keynes early advocates.
This is very good!
This is a very fine article. That said, I have a real problem with the idea that there exists an universal ethic. It is almost imposible for me to conceive of the 'is' of human nature; it is, so far, absolutely imposible for me to conceive of the 'should be'.
I am much more drawn to Socrates than to Aristotle: questions are much more interesting than are answers.
I have studied philosophy for all of my adult life, and have at various times been relatively convinced of this or that concept, only to come to dissatifaction. Furthermore, as I not-so-gracefully age, the most compelling argument seems to be that of scepticism, not in that I cannot know, but that I do not know. And what keeps bringing me back to and closer to scepticism is that the most destructive behaviors I have observed in myself as well as in others seem to have been deeply rooted in some form of certitude.
Such shameless Bards we have; and yet 'tis true,
There are as mad, abandon'd Criticks too.
The Bookful Blockhead, ignorantly read,
With Loads of Learned Lumber in his Head,
With his own Tongue still edifies his Ears,
And always List'ning to Himself appears.
All Books he reads, and all he reads assails,
From Dryden's Fables down to Durfey's Tales.
With him, most Authors steal their Works, or buy;
Garth did not write his own Dispensary.
Name a new Play, and he's the Poet's Friend,
Nay show'd his Faults - but when wou'd Poets mend?
No Place so Sacred from such Fops is barr'd,
Nor is Paul's Church more safe than Paul's Church-yard:
Nay, fly to Altars; there they'll talk you dead;
For Fools rush in where Angels fear to tread
from Alexander Pope's An Essay on Criticism
I have been trying to explain to my Marxist acquaintance the theory of subjective value and diminishing marginal utility. I was excited to see it so simply put forth in your fine rendition, for my attempts proved to be utter failures. Here is the reply I got after sending him the link to your comics, perhaps this will interest you:
"The Robinson Crusoe thought experiment begins with the assumption of an uninhabited island, that is a wilderness in which no one owns the natural resources. There is currently nowhere on Earth where this is true; all resources are owned by individuals, corporations or governments. Humans are social, not Robinson Crusoes, so, like it or not, economies are embedded in societies and economic power equates to political power.
From an anarchist perspective, this presentation still avoids the key question I keep asking, "How can anyone be free when everything they need to simply survive is owned by someone else?" If you are forced to do the bidding of owners just to live, this seems a perverted definition of freedom. Even with a gun to your head, you still have a choice, don't you?
From Marx's point of view, the Austrians confuse use value and exchange value and focus almost exclusively on the former. If you do this, it conceals the source of profit, which is, I think, their intent. Marx doesn't focus much on use value; he takes it as a given. Probably because if something has no use, it is unlikely that significant social resources will be devoted to its production. However, it does mean that he looks fairly exclusively at the "supply side" of the equation, and spends little time on demand... e.g. on such concepts as marginal utility. You might look at all of Marx's analysis as prefixed by the phrase, "Assuming commodities do sell...," and he then proceeds to analyze the source of profit, the concentration of wealth (as capital) and its social consequences.
The Austrians concentrate on use value - i.e. under what conditions people buy goods and in what quantity; the goods satisfy a consumer's need and once the need is satisfied, additional goods have decreasing marginal utility for that consumer. The labor theory of value still creeps in, however, because if I can produce something myself with much less effort than it takes for me to produce the goods I have to exchange for it, then no exchange occurs... I just make it myself.
I think the demand side of the economic equation is not irrelevant when looking at the overall dynamics of the economy, and it my be one reason why communist economies sometimes did a poor job of matching supply to demand. On the other hand, the communist/socialist economies have done a vastly better job of meeting basic human needs, given available resources. Hence, a poor country like Cuba can do a far better job of feeding, clothing, housing, and educating its citizens than the United States. For medical care, it is at least 20 times as efficient as the US ($251 per capita, vs $6000 for US for the same quality of care), and we've just demonstrated that this problem cannot be fixed by tweaking the capitalist economy. Were it not for "socialist" Medicare, the figures for the US would look much worse."
you didn't like the Mises software?
Well, a big issue is not being able to embed the slideshows of my comics, since the software doesn't support the <embed> tag. Also, the software is super slow periodically. There are other small things too, but those are the main issues.
Of human nature and its implications. ____________________________ By Lilburne.
Due to technical reasons, the new home of Summa Anthropica is...
I've finished copying all of my posts to there. However, many of the links in the articles still point here.
A Mini-Manifesto of Liberty
Society Versus State in Seven Epochs
Human Action Comics #1: The Basics
The 19th-Century Bernanke: Featured on Mises.org
The Second Coming of Keynes: Featured on Mises.org
For a New Libertarian Ethics
Principles of Economics by Carl Menger
History of Epistemological Thought
The following pages introduce and organize my posts.
The Essential Library: The books which have been the most formative to my worldview.
Article Recommendations
Video Recommendations
There is no question of importance, whose decision is not compriz'd in the science of man; and there is none, which can be decided with any certainty, before we become acquainted with that science.
David Hume, A Treatise of Human Nature
Summa Anthropica is the journal of Lilburne, a theorist, historian, and polemicist. For more information, read the About page.
Mises Author Archive
Mises Community Profile
Lilburne II
Create Your Badge
Reddit Profile
Twitter
Austro-Athenian Empire by Roderick Long
Depressed Metabolism
Free Advice by Robert Murphy
LewRockwell.com
LRC Blog
Mises.org
Mises Economics Blog
There we are walking hand in hand, somewhere on the sand at the end of the land and the edge of the shining sea. Drifting through time and space on the face of a little blue ball falling around the sun. One in a million, billion twinkling lights shining out for no one in the middle of the night. Here we are, sparks in the darkness, speaking of our love burning down forever and forever.
-James Taylor