You've been forewarned and cool story brah.
This is why I call myself a voluntarist now. No one has 100% debunked voluntarism.
Admittedly, it's pretty funny.
Economic Thought: Haiti: Two Hundred Years of Tragedy
liberty student: This is why I call myself a voluntarist now. No one has 100% debunked voluntarism.
I just say I am a liberal in the Misesian tradition.
This is apparently a Man Talk Forum: No Women Allowed!
Telpeurion's Disliked Person of the Week: David Kramer
I really don't understand the notion of youtube debates, and why people pay attention to them. Think of the amount of time they waste that could have been spent reading a book written by an author who is far better educated, and has far better understanding of the problems at hand.
I am becoming a Burkean Whig.
- F.A. Hayek
Lam, I bet you are a lot of fun at parties.
Heh, did anyone catch how he admitted that democracy doesn't work? @5:12
Prepare to get schooled by my Austrian perspective!
- You can prove anything empirically -
Trying too hard to be funny, imo.
laminustacitus: I really don't understand the notion of youtube debates, and why people pay attention to them. Think of the amount of time they waste that could have been spent reading a book written by an author who is far better educated, and has far better understanding of the problems at hand.
Because the common man doesn't have the capacity to think out problems on his own, right? There is nothing wrong with putting your own stake in the marketplace of ideas, even if those ideas include pitfalls that others have come to avoid. There is nothing wrong with these exchanges in my view, and although you yourself may not enjoy them, others may. Youtube is a great platform for spreading information.
You should leave a video response to him telling him that.
Someone's Video response.
Not bad.
Telpeurion: laminustacitus: I really don't understand the notion of youtube debates, and why people pay attention to them. Think of the amount of time they waste that could have been spent reading a book written by an author who is far better educated, and has far better understanding of the problems at hand. Because the common man doesn't have the capacity to think out problems on his own, right?
Because the common man doesn't have the capacity to think out problems on his own, right?
Because the common man brings up question an educated intellectual knows to have an obvious answer. I would far prefer to read Popper's The Logic of Scientific Discovery than watch a rant about scientific epistemology on youtube.
Telpeurion:There is nothing wrong with putting your own stake in the marketplace of ideas, even if those ideas include pitfalls that others have come to avoid.
Of course there is something wrong with doing that when at the same time one could educate oneself against those errors. The time one spends ranting on the internet could easily be spent reading quality works with a far higher time-to-knowledge return.
Telpeurion:Youtube is a great platform for spreading information.
Its a great platform for spreading information, but certainly not quality knowledge.
I wouldn't say it's 100% debunked.
Telpeurion: I just say I am a liberal in the Misesian tradition.
Because only scholars can say something of relevance. There's no way that anyone without a degree could ever make a valid statement. His posting is no different than that of an article link, he was trying to find a concise explanation of the subject so it could be skimmed and debated rather than posting the complete logical dissection that would take hours (days? weeks?) to study.
DarkCatalyst: Trying too hard to be funny, imo.
Go team Venture!
SerfAmericano: laminustacitus: I really don't understand the notion of youtube debates, and why people pay attention to them. Think of the amount of time they waste that could have been spent reading a book written by an author who is far better educated, and has far better understanding of the problems at hand. Because only scholars can say something of relevance. There's no way that anyone without a degree could ever make a valid statement.
Because only scholars can say something of relevance. There's no way that anyone without a degree could ever make a valid statement.
Sure.
SerfAmericano:is posting is no different than that of an article link, he was trying to find a concise explanation of the subject so it could be skimmed and debated rather than posting the complete logical dissection that would take hours (days? weeks?) to study.
Logical dissections are all that matter, concise explanations of a subject cannot nearly pierce the depth of any matter as should be done in any presentation of an idea, and it is only from the logical dissections that one could possibly fully understand a concise explanation.
laminustacitus: Logical dissections are all that matter, concise explanations of a subject cannot nearly pierce the depth of any matter as should be done in any presentation of an idea, and it is only from the logical dissections that one could possibly fully understand a concise explanation.
Exactly why the debate is needed, the debate is the logical dissection.
SerfAmericano: Go team Venture!
Best show evar
DarkCatalyst: SerfAmericano: Go team Venture! Best show evar
Agreed. Can't wait for Season 4.
SerfAmericano: laminustacitus: Logical dissections are all that matter, concise explanations of a subject cannot nearly pierce the depth of any matter as should be done in any presentation of an idea, and it is only from the logical dissections that one could possibly fully understand a concise explanation. Exactly why the debate is needed, the debate is the logical dissection.
Debates on youtube are not logical dissections of any argument, nor for that matter are conversations on internet fora. It requires professionals with broad knowledge in their discipline to fully dissect a subject, it is not the task of a layman.
kinda of reminds of that quote by roy childs about the intellectual level of anarchists. the title is rothbard as a system builder. it has always bugged me that marxism has attracted the brightest minds in the twenthieth century and anarchists have people like chomsky are considered leading thinkers.
laminustacitus:Debates on youtube are not logical dissections of any argument, nor for that matter are conversations on internet fora. It requires professionals with broad knowledge in their discipline to fully dissect a subject, it is not the task of a layman.
Some of my best education on Austrian economics, "Volunteerism" and libertarianism has been delivered to me via youtube.
For kicks listen to the video responses of his video.
laminustacitus: SerfAmericano: laminustacitus: Logical dissections are all that matter, concise explanations of a subject cannot nearly pierce the depth of any matter as should be done in any presentation of an idea, and it is only from the logical dissections that one could possibly fully understand a concise explanation. Exactly why the debate is needed, the debate is the logical dissection. Debates on youtube are not logical dissections of any argument, nor for that matter are conversations on internet fora. It requires professionals with broad knowledge in their discipline to fully dissect a subject, it is not the task of a layman.
Because the proffesionals got their knowledge from god, right? He handed them a light bulb while they sat in a dark basement masturbating to tentacle porn? Please. How do you think logical dissections happen? Is it not from repeated debate, the accruement of knowledge (which you would recieve either from self or mutual debate) and the study of history (itself open to debate)? A logical dissection is the answer of a logical problem. This could be on any scale, from whether or not to put your hand on the oven to macroeconomic policy. Scholars become scholars by study and analysis, debate is the study and analysis of a subject with multiple people trying to solve the logical problem. You don't have to be a scholar to do that, if that was the case scholars wouldn't exist (excepting divine intervention).
garegin: it has always bugged me that marxism has attracted the brightest minds in the twenthieth century and anarchists have people like chomsky are considered leading thinkers.
it has always bugged me that marxism has attracted the brightest minds in the twenthieth century and anarchists have people like chomsky are considered leading thinkers.
... such as?
filc: laminustacitus:Debates on youtube are not logical dissections of any argument, nor for that matter are conversations on internet fora. It requires professionals with broad knowledge in their discipline to fully dissect a subject, it is not the task of a layman. Some of my best education on Austrian economics, "Volunteerism" and libertarianism has been delivered to me via youtube.
I'm sorry.
laminustacitus:I'm sorry.
I'd go to the lectures in person but they are usually not held around my area. :)
laminustacitus: filc: laminustacitus:Debates on youtube are not logical dissections of any argument, nor for that matter are conversations on internet fora. It requires professionals with broad knowledge in their discipline to fully dissect a subject, it is not the task of a layman. Some of my best education on Austrian economics, "Volunteerism" and libertarianism has been delivered to me via youtube. I'm sorry.
So according to you, no one can post a video making the same arguments as those found in a book? I am sure you look down on the podcasts distributed by Mises.org too. Some people prefer to learn through audio and visuals, and if you don't that is fine.
HOWEVER, the big issue here is that you are saying we should not waste time on people with valid questions and points. Is the answer, in your view, to throw a book at the opposition's face and simply refuse to discuss the matter until they've read it? Not everyone reads books, and other means can be used. A ten minute flash animation illustrating Austrian business cycle theory can be just as effective, if not more, than a dip in Chapter 12.
Oh, and the worst way to convert others to your way of thinking is to dismiss any conception of the world that is not your own. If at any moment someone approaches you with curiosity about liberalism and you can't answer their questions because you feel less adequate than Human Action then I doubt that person will come back to you for discussion. It is one thing to think someone said it better, but is it really too hard to paraphrase? If worst comes to worst, parrot quotations, but do not ever sink so low as to think books are the only effective means of spreading "quality knowledge".
At any rate, there have been plenty of instances where many different people can reach the same conclusion from different approaches. But I guess you are probably set in the "correct" path.
filc: laminustacitus:I'm sorry. I'd go to the lectures in person but they are usually not held around my area. :)
There's a big difference between that and a kid cracking jokes into his webcam.
These mediums are not conducive to systematic, logical or clear thinking. Even on this forum, debates are prone to collapse, with very few ideas ever being actually developed.
“Elections are Futures Markets in Stolen Property.” - H. L. Mencken
SerfAmericano: garegin: it has always bugged me that marxism has attracted the brightest minds in the twenthieth century and anarchists have people like chomsky are considered leading thinkers. ... such as?
zefreak: filc: laminustacitus:I'm sorry. I'd go to the lectures in person but they are usually not held around my area. :) There's a big difference between that and a kid cracking jokes into his webcam. These mediums are not conducive to systematic, logical or clear thinking. Even on this forum, debates are prone to collapse, with very few ideas ever being actually developed.
That is because youtube is a video site that provides for far more than just academic tastes, though there is a spot for that if you would take the time to look. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. =]
zefreak: These mediums are not conducive to systematic, logical or clear thinking. Even on this forum, debates are prone to collapse, with very few ideas ever being actually developed.
That can be applied to all mediums, on the internet things just moves faster (for better or worse).
If I were the only "anarchist," I would be very happy to wear the title. What embarrasses me about it is the few other "anarchists" - many of them are crazy - and I don't feel like being identified with them.
zefreak: There's a big difference between that and a kid cracking jokes into his webcam. These mediums are not conducive to systematic, logical or clear thinking. Even on this forum, debates are prone to collapse, with very few ideas ever being actually developed.
The idea is to provoke interest in others.
If we stick ourselves in a closet and read until we are old and ripe bearing all the knowledge of the world, who did we benefit? Can it even be said that we benefited ourselves?
Two words: mental. midget.
Do you like driving? I do. Do you like roads? I do.
this is at like the 1:17
Who pays for those roads? You tell me... Who protects us from foreign invasion?
No, you tell me who pays for those roads.
Foreign invasion? lolwut?
============================
David Z
"The issue is always the same, the government or the market. There is no third solution."
Lam is probably not aware of the Misesmedia or Nielsio channels.
David Z:Foreign invasion? lolwut?
Service guarantees citizenship!
liberty student: David Z:Foreign invasion? lolwut? Service guarantees citizenship!
Great movie. Even more relevant now than then.
garegin: kinda of reminds of that quote by roy childs about the intellectual level of anarchists. the title is rothbard as a system builder. it has always bugged me that marxism has attracted the brightest minds in the twenthieth century and anarchists have people like chomsky are considered leading thinkers.
1. Bertrand Russell was pretty smart and he saw through marxism right away.
2. Funny how the brightest minds were so dead wrong. Or do people still believe in marxism after the collapse of Russia etc.?
So the q here is: How could the brightest minds be so stupid? Possible Tentative Answer: Marxism is a very appealing fairy tale, that was untested in the real world and therefor not yet proven wrong. In addition, bright minds may not always be shrewd practical minds.
The government is capable of supplying all your needs...
'the American is the most unphilosophical of beings. The rationalization of conduct in general is most repugnant to him; he prefers to emotionalize it.' - Albert J Nock
I must say, I don't really understand why people take offense at this. As far as I understand, laminustacitus is making two claims:
I don't know what people would deny here. I don't think laminustacitus he told anybody that they should never watch Youtbue video debates (although, I don't) just that they're educational value is low.
People here seem to be getting all angsty about some alleged elitism in his post, to be honest I can understand why, but they should really stop kidding themselves.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
Rather, lam should back his claims.
We hold those truths to be self-evident.
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