I recently have decided to return to the Mises discussion boards after some time away because of my disdain for the way discussions were being handled. Upon returning I noticed a disturbing trend on both the Facebook Mises page as well as these very forums. It seems that as opposed to presenting new ideas or explaining and justifying some currently thought of ideas, the current trend is to link to a previously written article or video. It very much bothers me, since this whole process and forum is supposed to be advancing the cause of liberty.
My question is, does it bother you that some people would rather not "waste their time" thinking of new ideas for problems, or that they would rather listen to what someone else has said? And if it does not, what separates us from those on the other side who just listen to what Obama or others tell them? It would even seem, especially from my recent observations, that maybe statists and Socialists of late are becoming more creative. They have found new ways to incorporate their policies and to get their government, while many on our side seem to be willing to recycle old ideas for new obstacles, instead of fighting and thinking.
Heres a link to the conversation...
Jonathan: I recently have decided to return to the Mises discussion boards after some time away because of my disdain for the way discussions were being handled. Upon returning I noticed a disturbing trend on both the Facebook Mises page as well as these very forums. It seems that as opposed to presenting new ideas or explaining and justifying some currently thought of ideas, the current trend is to link to a previously written article or video. It very much bothers me, since this whole process and forum is supposed to be advancing the cause of liberty. My question is, does it bother you that some people would rather not "waste their time" thinking of new ideas for problems, or that they would rather listen to what someone else has said? And if it does not, what separates us from those on the other side who just listen to what Obama or others tell them? It would even seem, especially from my recent observations, that maybe statists and Socialists of late are becoming more creative. They have found new ways to incorporate their policies and to get their government, while many on our side seem to be willing to recycle old ideas for new obstacles, instead of fighting and thinking. Heres a link to the conversation...
I have come to find that those repeatedly say 'You need to make up new ideas' are usually people don't understand the old ones. What is new about liberty? what is new about property? NAP? the immorality of government? To quote Lew Rockwell: "Times change, principles don't"
'It is difficult to imagine any normal person wishing to meet Marx for a third time.' - Alexander Gray, The Socialist Tradition
Laughing Man: I have come to find that those repeatedly say 'You need to make up new ideas' are usually people don't understand the old ones. What is new about liberty? what is new about property? NAP? the immorality of government? To quote Lew Rockwell: "Times change, principles don't"
You do not believe that the praxeological sciences are advancible anymore?
I do not claim that ideas can not be used for more than one purpose, but you certainly can not be claiming that the situations that present themselves to us are static? I am not saying that the old ideas are bad or that I dont believe them, but I dont come on the discussion boards to read the same things I have been reading on the blogs or in books.
I. Ryan:You do not believe that the praxeological sciences are advancible anymore?
Advancible to what end? What exists in the world that praxeology can't explain?
Jonathan:but you certainly can not be claiming that the situations that present themselves to us are static?
The war of ideas will always be the political 'isms' against each other. Like I said, times change, principles don't.
Maybe I misunderstood when I read the slogan as "Advancing the scholarship of liberty in the tradition of the Austrian School"....its fine, I will stop expecting advancement from this site. There was a reason I initially quit posting on this site, and it was people such as yourselves.
And just and FYI, I am a student of economics preparing to follow the PhD path in economics, so I feel that I have a very good grasp on the theories and principles.
Laughing Man: Advancible to what end? What exists in the world that praxeology can't explain?
You implied that the praxeological sciences are not advancible anymore. As an example of an advancement, the marginal revolution was an advancement of the praxeological sciences.
Jonathan: Maybe I misunderstood when I read the slogan as "Advancing the scholarship of liberty in the tradition of the Austrian School"....its fine, I will stop expecting advancement from this site. There was a reason I initially quit posting on this site, and it was people such as yourselves. And just and FYI, I am a student of economics preparing to follow the PhD path in economics, so I feel that I have a very good grasp on the theories and principles.
Ok just answer a simple question before you get all pouty: What isn't explain in the realm of economics by praxeology?
I. Ryan:You implied that the praxeological sciences are not advancible anymore.
Advancible in what sense?
That we can spread the message of liberty to more people? Sure that is a given.
That we can invent groovy new theories with new names and advocate those as being above the basic message of liberty? That's ridiculous.
Go back to the beginning with Lao Tzu. Libertarianism is the same principle just different times.
Laughing Man: That we can invent groovy new theories with new names and advocate those as being above the basic message of liberty? That's ridiculous.
Your posts in this thread are absolutely ridiculous. Mises advanced praxeological science. Do you think that his motives and accomplishments were "ridiculous"? You may convince idiots via dogmatic slogans but you will not convince intelligent people without a systematic and coherent justification.
.
I. Ryan:Your posts in this thread are absolutely ridiculous. Mises advanced praxeological science. Do you think that his motives and accomplishments were "ridiculous"?
Advanced in what respect? I keep asking this and you don't address it.
Laughing Man: Advanced in what respect? I keep asking this and you don't address it.
Mises provided a more systematic and foundational description of economic action which happened to utilitistically justify, at the least, classical liberalism. You must possess a motive which I have failed to apprehend because your posts in this thread are or, at the least, seem insane.
I. Ryan:Mises provided a more systematic and foundation description of economic action which happened to utilitistically justify liberalism.
Did Mises invent praxeology? I say no. We use principles to establish a methodology/viewpoint of the world and deduce from there. The very principles that helped Mises were principles developed thousands of years ago. Yet again I say 'Times Change, Principles don't'
Laughing Man: Did Mises invent praxeology? I say no. We use principles to establish a methodology/viewpoint of the world and deduce from there. The very principles that helped Mises were principles developed thousands of years ago. Yet again I say 'Times Change, Principles don't'
He asked about new ideas and not about new "principles" (whatever that means). Mises's advances of praxeology were all new ideas.
I. Ryan:He asked about new ideas and not about new "principles" (whatever that means). Mises's advances of praxeology were all new ideas.
Then I will ask you what I asked him: What is new about liberty? NAP? private property? The whole of libertarianism is deduced through the NAP. In my opinion there doesn't need to be new ideas that could work or not, there needs to be propounding of ideas that we know work and those ideas are the same throughout the ages: liberty, private property and NAP.
Laughing Man: Then I will ask you what I asked him: What is new about liberty? NAP? private property? The whole of libertarianism is deduced through the NAP. In my opinion there doesn't need to be new ideas that could work or not, there needs to be propounding of ideas that we know work and those ideas are the same throughout the ages: liberty, private property and NAP.
The policy is incredibly simple. The justification is not simple.
I. Ryan:The policy is incredibly simple. The justification is not simple.
The justification can be either deontology or consequential.
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap