Hello From a "Post-Austrian", Anarcho-Capitalist,Taoist,911 "No- Planer".

Andrew Cain replied on Sun, May 24 2009 2:53 AM | Locked

rated by 0 users

AnarchomarxistLibertaria:

Social alienation, Marxist or not, is hardly limited to friendship. Do you reject the entire concept of social capital? (I know you might..)

There is no basis for saying that just because I am friendly or kind-hearted to another person they will instantly reflect the same onto me.

AnarchomarxistLibertaria:

QUALIFIED historical materialism is involved in the anarcho-Marxist synthesis, as I made clear a number of times. I don't know why you bothered typing all that about unqualified, undeveloped historical materialism. Qualified HM is not absolutist. It does not require infallability. Neither does praxeology btw..

I covered this in my writing. Historical materialism is a speculative history theory. It becomes ridiculous to exclaim "historical materialism works here and here but not here and here" because it is no different then propogating 'historical nationalism', 'historical religion', 'historical ideology.' It stops being historical materialism when it loses its all encompasing nature. It is debased into events merely explained by economic factors, not historical materialism for to concede that the 'superstructure' affects the 'economic base' is to completely diverge from Marxist theory and hence historical materialism. It is like your movement is skulking the shadows of academia kidnapping interesting terminology and titles that you can wear as badges and when asked if that is what you believe you openly state 'well I believe in something totally different then this...yet oddly enough similar."

Andrew Cain replied on Sun, May 24 2009 3:00 AM | Locked

rated by 0 users

AnarchomarxistLibertaria:

You say revision, I say development. This goes back to the differentiation between function and origin..

Yes well as some have concluded in this group, your ability of word usage isn't highly esteemed. Revision is the correction or trumpeting of original thought. In terms of Marx, none of his followers were running around stating "Finally! One of Marx's predictions is correct!" Their revisionism was centered around keeping a faulty paradigm from dying out by mystifying the concepts. Things such as value come to mind.

AnarchomarxistLibertaria:

I like anarcho-socialists evel less than anarcho-capitalists. I'm not going to lump myselves in with them. Besides, theyre largely unsophisticated and dont appreciate classical liberal thinking.

So capitalists are corporatists and socialists are...too communal?

liberty student replied on Sun, May 24 2009 3:01 AM | Locked

rated by 0 users

AnarchomarxistLibertaria:

Then why did you make an issue of my "labels" and name?

I did?

I made issue with your penchant for label differentiation, but I don't care if you call yourself an Anarcho-Poptart.  I only care what you think and what you do.

AnarchomarxistLibertaria:

I did not start this friendly conflict.

This is not a conflict.  You misunderstood what ancap is. I clarified it.  We understand each other now.

whakaheke replied on Sun, May 24 2009 3:02 AM | Locked

rated by 0 users

Laughing Man:

There is no basis for saying that just because I am friendly or kind-hearted to another person they will instantly reflect the same onto me.

Yes there is.. but, anyway, that's not what social capital (or the flipside of social alienation, for that matter) means. Social capital the aggregate of the actual or potential resources which are linked to possession of a network of relationships of mutual acquaintance and recognition. It is accepted as a validly useful form of capital by virtually all modern economists.

QUALIFIED QUALIFIED QUALIFIED historical materialism. If you think that providing qualifications to validate a fruiful observation is "kidnapping," okay. But it is what I accept. I suppose you also have a problem with the Law of Conservation of Energy being referred to as the Law of Conservation of Mass-Energy...

whakaheke replied on Sun, May 24 2009 3:04 AM | Locked

rated by 0 users

liberty student:

This is not a conflict.  You misunderstood what ancap is. I clarified it.  We understand each other now.

HAAAAAHAHAHA.. what's that word for when your mind actually alters your concious perception of reality because of your desire to have reality fit your fantasies? Oh yeah, insanity.

whakaheke replied on Sun, May 24 2009 3:09 AM | Locked

rated by 0 users

Laughing Man:

Yes well as some have concluded in this group, your ability of word usage isn't highly esteemed. Revision is the correction or trumpeting of original thought. In terms of Marx, none of his followers were running around stating "Finally! One of Marx's predictions is correct!" Their revisionism was centered around keeping a faulty paradigm from dying out by mystifying the concepts. Things such as value come to mind.

Personal attack, blah, blah. Trumpeting? Revision is not trumpeting, by any defintion. Yes, there are Marxists who claim that certain predictions turned out to be correct.. Christopher HItchens for one.

Capitalists and socialists? What? I was talking about the actual people who identified themselves as anarcho-capitalists and anarcho-socialists, many of whom on both sides are unsophisticated with regards to their understanding of reality.

Andrew Cain replied on Sun, May 24 2009 3:22 AM | Locked

rated by 0 users

AnarchomarxistLibertaria:

Yes there is.. but, anyway, that's not what social capital (or the flipside of social alienation, for that matter) means. Social capital the aggregate of the actual or potential resources which are linked to possession of a network of relationships of mutual acquaintance and recognition. It is accepted as a validly useful form of capital by virtually all modern economists.

I know what social capital means and I think it is absurd. It is an ambiguous definition and one can never attest to actual objective 'resources' for how do you know your friend is an actual friend? He/she just might be saying it to placate you.

AnarchomarxistLibertaria:

QUALIFIED QUALIFIED QUALIFIED historical materialism.

Call it 'guaranteed historical materialism' I care not for when you input historical materialism into the equation then you are implicently adding in a philosophy of history which has been disproved even by the historical community. This 'qualified' historical materialism is only validated when arbitarily postulated and I guess fits into your paradigm that you are whatever one person loves and nothing they hate at any given time. Much like political 'dark matter' that molds to whatever condition or environment it is in, lacking any solidity. If we were Marxists, would you be heralding the positives of private property rights? Or perhaps natural rights if you actually believe in such a thing? I can now see what Liberty means when he stated that you are involved in a movement that wants to eats cake too.

AnarchomarxistLibertaria:

I suppose you also have a problem with the Law of Conservation of Energy being referred to as the Law of Conservation of Mass-Energy...

I have no qualm with that. However, if you were to say the Law of Conservation of Energy can really be called the Law of Qualified expenditure of Energy in a Conservativizing fashion then I may make some remark. Historical materialism postulates a certain development of human society...an all encompassing reason behind it. You cannot build ON TOP OF THAT and say well it only works sometimes but it is still historical materialism. The very definition of historical materialism refutes your 'qualified' historical materialism. So call it 'Mutualism materialism' or the 'Neo-Materialism' I honestly care not, what I do care for is this monsterous illogic that you have presented here concerning a philosophy in the very field I practice. You are metaphorically urinating on my lawn.

Andrew Cain replied on Sun, May 24 2009 3:29 AM | Locked

rated by 0 users

AnarchomarxistLibertaria:

Personal attack, blah, blah. Trumpeting? Revision is not trumpeting, by any defintion. Yes, there are Marxists who claim that certain predictions turned out to be correct.. Christopher HItchens for one.

Perhaps trumpeting is the wrong word. Expounding the original idea. And oh god please by all that is holy tell me which prediction that Trotskite claimed came true.

AnarchomarxistLibertaria:

Capitalists and socialists? What? I was talking about the actual people who identified themselves as anarcho-capitalists and anarcho-socialists, many of whom on both sides are unsophisticated with regards to their understanding of reality.

I'm quickly realizing that in this group 'understanding reality' is a euphemism for 'well people don't think like I do therefore they are wrong.' You stated that the Socialists are too unsophisticated and lack in classical liberal values. When I think classical liberal values and Socialists I theorize there would be a conflict in relation to property. Therefore I said capitalists are corporatists and asked if socialists were too into communalization of property. The question still needs answering.

whakaheke replied on Sun, May 24 2009 3:39 AM | Locked

rated by 0 users

Laughing Man:

I know what social capital means and I think it is absurd. It is an ambiguous definition and one can never attest to actual objective 'resources' for how do you know your friend is an actual friend? He/she just might be saying it to placate you.

Absurd? You might want to rethink that if you want to ever again talk about a post-state society. It is impossible to intelligently talk about the organization of a stateless economy without an understanding of social capital and the consequent trust/friendship/acquaintance/reciprocity required for non-enforced contracts. See Yoram Barzel, Gordon Tullock, James Buchanan, etc, etc. To dismiss that value of social relationships is idiotic, no offense.

Laughing Man:

Call it 'guaranteed historical materialism' I care not for when you input historical materialism into the equation then you are implicently adding in a philosophy of history which has been disproved even by the historical community. This 'qualified' historical materialism is only validated when arbitarily postulated and I guess fits into your paradigm that you are whatever one person loves and nothing they hate at any given time. Much like political 'dark matter' that molds to whatever condition or environment it is in, lacking any solidity. If we were Marxists, would you be heralding the positives of private property rights? Or perhaps natural rights if you actually believe in such a thing? I can now see what Liberty means when he stated that you are involved in a movement that wants to eats cake too.

As I said in my first post to you, I do not hold loyalty to ANY ideological label. I take what is fruitful and cohesively useful from these systems and synthesize them, a synthesis that has resulted in similar conclusions to those of Kevin Carson, Murray Rothbard, most self-identified mutualists,  many anarcho-capitalists, and some anarcho-socialists. That is how development works. I don't care what you want to call it.

I do herald the positives of private property rights. I also herald the positives of communalism. That is because they both do have definite positves and becaue both can exist in a post-coercive state monopolized society. To deny that is, well, to be in denial. 

I do not believe in absolutistic natural rights or any other outdated absolutism.

Laughing Man:

an all encompassing reason behind it. You cannot build ON TOP OF THAT and say well it only works sometimes but it is still historical materialism

That is exactly what happened to the Law of the Conservation of Mass. Google it.

You say "illogic" but have demonstrated no such thing. You have, however, demonstrated symptoms of butthurt.

Andrew Cain replied on Sun, May 24 2009 3:50 AM | Locked

rated by 0 users

AnarchomarxistLibertaria:

It is impossible to intelligently talk about the organization of a stateless economy without an understanding of social capital and the consequent trust/friendship/acquaintance/reciprocity required for non-enforced contracts.

And social capital means nothing if not for reciprocity and what ensures that? Completely nothing. Good faith, hope that it will actually pay off. By making a friend, I am not 'building capital' so that I may one day utilize that capital. I'm merely interacting with a like-minded individual. I see nothing pseudo-economical in that.

AnarchomarxistLibertaria:

As I said in my first post to you, I do not hold loyalty to ANY ideological label.

Right just the first thing in this topic that you said was 'I'm a Post-Austrian Anarcho-Marxist'

AnarchomarxistLibertaria:

I take what is fruitful and cohesively useful from these systems and synthesize them, a synthesis that has resulted in similar conclusions to those of Kevin Carson, Murray Rothbard, most self-identified mutualists,  many anarcho-capitalists, and some anarcho-socialists. That is how development works. I don't care what you want to call it.

Rothbard was consistent and don't begin to imply that you are like him. In fact the very man you bring up so eagerly denounce the non-sense you preach.

AnarchomarxistLibertaria:

I do herald the positives of private property rights. I also herald the positives of communalism. That is because they both do have definite positves and becaue both can exist in a post-coercive state monopolized society. To deny that is, well, to be in denial. 

Pray tell, what are the positives of communalism. I think you will find an eager audience at the Mises Institute on this subject.

AnarchomarxistLibertaria:

That is exactly what happened to the Law of the Conservation of Mass. Google it.

Has the synthesis of physics and history begun?

AnarchomarxistLibertaria:

You say "illogic" but have demonstrated no such thing. You have, however, demonstrated symptoms of butthurt.

Because you are fundamentally lacking in an actual definition of historical materialism. If you knew what it meant you would actually see that 'qualified' historical materialism is self-refuting. It is like saying 'I'm a pacifist...but if we can 100% confirm a murder is a murder then I say bring on the death penalty" You are no longer  a pacifist if you say such things just like it is no longer actual historical materialism if it does not explain the progress of history as being the result of the class struggle over the means of production.

whakaheke replied on Sun, May 24 2009 4:15 AM | Locked

rated by 0 users

Laughing Man:

And social capital means nothing if not for reciprocity and what ensures that? Completely nothing. Good faith, hope that it will actually pay off. By making a friend, I am not 'building capital' so that I may one day utilize that capital. I'm merely interacting with a like-minded individual. I see nothing pseudo-economical in that.

No. Social capital is not just about "friends." Social capital does not equal 'socialite capital.' You also didn't address your initial dismissal.

Laughing Man:

Right just the first thing in this topic that you said was 'I'm a Post-Austrian Anarcho-Marxist'

and then I explained that I only used those labels to give a rough idea of my sympathies, and not due to any kind of ideological loyalty. Please read the posts already made before replying.

Laughing Man:

Rothbard was consistent and don't begin to imply that you are like him. In fact the very man you bring up so eagerly denounce the non-sense you preach.

I am consistent and a lot like Rothbard. I actually hold Rothbard only behind Adam Smith (who also shared my communalist, anti-corporatist sympathies) in esteem. I am, for all intents and purposes, Rothbard incarnate. ;)

Laughing Man:

Pray tell, what are the positives of communalism. I think you will find an eager audience at the Mises Institute on this subject.

It is noble of you to reference the closed-mindedness of your cohorts. Non-coerced communalism has been the post-state ideal held by most anarchists for a long time. The positives are clear. Communalism provides a mechanism for the efficient acquisition of social capital (or however you want to word that), a positive liberty flipside to the negative liberty of anarchy, etc. Read Murray Bookchin or Proudhon on the subject.

Laughing Man:

Has the synthesis of physics and history begun?

Maybe you should take a break from the soft sciences and delve into the foundational sciences for a bit... The Law of Conservation of Mass was held for years at the statement that matter could not be created or destroyed. However, that was later found to be incomplete. Matter can be destroyed. Energy, however, cannot. The mass and energy conservations laws were thus synthesized.. and now even the understandings of what matter and energy are put in question. Yet, the name of the law remains..

I know what historical materialism in the Marxist context means. I see no argument from you here other than irrelevant ad hominem. Fitting, I guess.

Andrew Cain replied on Sun, May 24 2009 5:51 AM | Locked

rated by 0 users

AnarchomarxistLibertaria:

No. Social capital is not just about "friends." Social capital does not equal 'socialite capital.' You also didn't address your initial dismissal.

Have you started to label acquaintance as another term in your bizzaro ideology? That is what social capital supposedly is. Establishing meaningful connections with your surrounding community in order to bring positive benefits to the surroundings. Examples such as parks, playgrounds, community BBQ's etc.

AnarchomarxistLibertaria:

and then I explained that I only used those labels to give a rough idea of my sympathies, and not due to any kind of ideological loyalty. Please read the posts already made before replying.

So you do have some loyalty to what you label yourself. Yet again the contradictionary nature presents itself. I wonder if I continue this discussion long enough will you start engaging in double think?

AnarchomarxistLibertaria:

I am consistent and a lot like Rothbard. I actually hold Rothbard only behind Adam Smith (who also shared my communalist, anti-corporatist sympathies) in esteem. I am, for all intents and purposes, Rothbard incarnate. ;)

Bear witness to your supposed former self denounce your own present ideology.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KWdUIuID8ag

Start 34 minutes in. Enjoy.

AnarchomarxistLibertaria:

It is noble of you to reference the closed-mindedness of your cohorts.

Please, you come to a 'den' in which private property is the epidemy of human action. A place which constantly puts out page after page, article after article extoling private property and denouncing communalization. You do not walk into a den of lions and denounce them for not having enough sheep around.

AnarchomarxistLibertaria:

Maybe you should take a break from the soft sciences and delve into the foundational sciences for a bit... The Law of Conservation of Mass was held for years at the statement that matter could not be created or destroyed. However, that was later found to be incomplete. Matter can be destroyed. Energy, however, cannot. The mass and energy conservations laws were thus synthesized.. and now even the understandings of what matter and energy are put in question. Yet, the name of the law remains..

Fascinating. You can google Conservation of Energy...so hmmm seems like they did rename it, or at least invented a new law for it.

AnarchomarxistLibertaria:

I know what historical materialism in the Marxist context means. I see no argument from you here other than irrelevant ad hominem. Fitting, I guess

And I see flagrant idiocy. I presented a series of Marxist quotes concerning historical materialism in a topic labeled 'Historical Materialism' in the history chapter if you want to see actual Marxist theory on the subject. You will come to find that Marx postulated that society was not moved forth by ideas, religion, politics, nationalism. These were all mere products of the economic conditions and the relations of production. They had no force in the world. Economics was the mono-casual cataclyst to every event in human history. To paraphrase Marx: All human history is just a chronicale of class struggle. It wasn't a battle of ideas. It wasn't a battle of social power vs state power. It was the haves and the have nots. It was that simple and to open the door to the influencing of the economic base by the superstructure was the crux that would destroy the whole argument. That is historical materialism, that EVERYTHING of this world, all of our ideas about society about religion about the nation-state EVERYTHING was about which economic side you were on, the bourgeois or the proletariat. Now you can gleefully bounce around about how you've got this wonderful new brand of historical materialism that is better then the last one because some hack is telling you it is qualified but at the end of the day it is just the same Marxist eyewash that is so thoroughly destroyed by members of this institute that it quickly becoming a waste of time to entertain your ravings. Concerning the ad hominem, I attacked your argument as being debased then I attacked you for being personally ignorant. There was no skirting the argument just to insult you.

onebornfree replied on Sun, May 24 2009 8:41 AM | Locked

rated by 0 users

Daniel wrote the following post at Sun, May 24 2009 1:58 AM: "Thus, I would love for you to respond to the following:
How exactly does 911 tie into Austrian economics; and how does Austrian economics tie into LewRockwell.com (LRC)? I don't see how it is necessary to be an Austrian in order to get publiched on LRC. In fact, probably half of the articles published on LRC are by Austrians. Hell, you don't even need to be anti-state to be published on LRC. You do understand the difference between LRC and LvMI, right?"

911 and Austrian Economics

Whether it does or does not "fit in" with austrian economic theory or is relevant in any way is surely entirely up to the individual , based on their own [subjective ] values - no?

If it does not fit in for you and you do not wish to discuss it ,or  you are not curious about mine and a couple of Austrians assertions that no planes hit any buildings [WTC1 &2 + Pentagon] and no plane buried itself completely into the ground in Pennsylvania , and what it might mean vis a vis austrian economic theory and your own  freedom, so be it.

For me and maybe others  here, these issues perhaps do fit in- like I say its up to the individual, based on their own value judgement - and no , just because you do not think it relevant within this site does not make it so- try letting go of the illusion that what you think others should think here [or anywhere else] is the way it is, or the way it should be.

And speaking only for myself, as a consultant/therapist, I believe that a thorough understanding of the whole 911  issue [and in particular ,"no plane theory" or NPT] can be an important fulcrum point  and motivator for those seeking personal freedom - "Austrians" included, specifically because it is the most recent, and, once you get past the media video fakery of that day,  the most " in your face" example of what a state is, and what it is prepared to do to ensure its continuation.

An exposure/understanding of the massive media fakery on 911 can therefor be an extremely  powerful revelation/motivation  for the freedom-seeking individual.

911 , LRC + 2 Writers

In my first post in the thread I gave the name of 2 other Austrians who are "no-planers" like myself, one of whom is a contributor at LRC [ and a former federal employee, to boot] . So this guy is an "Austrian" , and he's published at LRC: writer/ austrian [1]

  http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&subpage1=we_have_holes

writer/ austrian [2] : 

"9/11 Studies as Austro-Libertarian Opportunity"

Although the other is not  a writer for LRC, he was published at the above website : "9/11 Studies as Austro-Libertarian Opportunity- An open letter to the faculty and students of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, and to libertarians in general" , here:

http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&subpage1=libertarian_opportunity

onebornfree replied on Sun, May 24 2009 8:58 AM | Locked

rated by 0 users

bbnet:

mr. man of many labels - after you graduate, you'll discover that women are more into capitalist, in the meantime contact mr1001nights on youtube for some dating, fashion, and philosophy tips.

LS is right. Keep it simple, work it out, see the truth, and move on ... now back to aluminum cans piercing steel gratings ...

".. now back to aluminum cans piercing steel gratings ..." Heh! In your dreams!

As for women, I find it helps tremendously to just flat out lie  -talk like a principled lefty- whilst flashing plenty of dough under their nose - never fails.

sapSUCKER replied on Sun, May 24 2009 9:33 AM | Locked

rated by 0 users

Why did you change your avatar from the eyepatch man w/ gun to a ying yang?!

onebornfree replied on Sun, May 24 2009 9:38 AM | Locked

rated by 0 users

sapSUCKER:

Why did you change your avatar from the eyepatch man w/ gun to a ying yang?!

How much is that information worth to you?

sapSUCKER replied on Sun, May 24 2009 9:47 AM | Locked

rated by 0 users

To me, nothing.  But I do know a couple of PhD students down in the psychology department who would kill for the opportunity to talk with you.

onebornfree replied on Sun, May 24 2009 10:10 AM | Locked

rated by 0 users

sapSUCKER:

To me, nothing.  But I do know a couple of PhD students down in the psychology department who would kill for the opportunity to talk with you.

"To me, nothing. " - just as I thought .

"Kill" eh?

marquise replied on Sun, May 24 2009 10:25 AM | Locked

rated by 0 users

Hello...

Why do you need so many labels upon yourself?!?

For me one is already too much....

onebornfree replied on Sun, May 24 2009 10:49 AM | Locked

rated by 0 users

marquise:

Hello...

Why do you need so many labels upon yourself?!?

For me one is already too much....

I agree, labels- schmables!

DanielMuff replied on Sun, May 24 2009 12:33 PM | Locked

rated by 0 users

onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:

911 and Austrian Economics

Whether it does or does not "fit in" with austrian economic theory or is relevant in any way is surely entirely up to the individual , based on their own [subjective ] values - no?

You're the one who brought it up. Obviously, I'm trying to figure out how you find Austrian economics relevant to 911.

onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:

If it does not fit in for you and you do not wish to discuss it ,or  you are not curious about mine and a couple of Austrians assertions that no planes hit any buildings [WTC1 &2 + Pentagon] and no plane buried itself completely into the ground in Pennsylvania , and what it might mean vis a vis austrian economic theory and your own  freedom, so be it.

Dude, I'm trying to establish how it is that you fit Austrian economics into 911. I'm saying that you are wrong or a quack. I'm trying to understand your premises.

onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:

For me and maybe others  here, these issues perhaps do fit in- like I say its up to the individual, based on their own value judgement - and no , just because you do not think it relevant within this site does not make it so- try letting go of the illusion that what you think others should think here [or anywhere else] is the way it is, or the way it should be.

Huh?

onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:

And speaking only for myself, as a consultant/therapist, I believe that a thorough understanding of the whole 911  issue [and in particular ,"no plane theory" or NPT] can be an important fulcrum point  and motivator for those seeking personal freedom - "Austrians" included, specifically because it is the most recent, and, once you get past the media video fakery of that day,  the most " in your face" example of what a state is, and what it is prepared to do to ensure its continuation.

Austrians can't make value judgments, but they can "tell it how it is". In other words, they can't say "this is better than that", but they can say "this happened because of that". Also, I think you are confusing Austrian economics and anarcho-capitalism.

onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:

911 , LRC + 2 Writers

In my first post in the thread I gave the name of 2 other Austrians who are "no-planers" like myself, one of whom is a contributor at LRC [ and a former federal employee, to boot] . So this guy is an "Austrian" , and he's published at LRC: writer/ austrian [1]

  http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&subpage1=we_have_holes 

Okay. Now we're getting somewhere.

onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:

writer/ austrian [2] : 

"9/11 Studies as Austro-Libertarian Opportunity"

Although the other is not  a writer for LRC, he was published at the above website : "9/11 Studies as Austro-Libertarian Opportunity- An open letter to the faculty and students of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, and to libertarians in general" , here:

http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&subpage1=libertarian_opportunity

I see. Okay. So what? So what if the above you said is true?

onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:

 This is because I believe that Austrian economics has become largely corrupted with persons with, for me, irrelevant, political "change the world" agendas and such like. 

So, are you saying that the ATBC is now corrupted because some Astrian who didn't even develop the ATBC has published works that you find "irrelevant, political "change the world" agendas and such like."?

onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:

 Also, maybe it's just me, but I see many prominent "Austrians" posting at L. Rockwells' site expressing views that I see as inconsistent with the lessons of Mises and Rothbard,  in the areas of government, banking, fiduciary media, and most of all, the area of economic prediction [mostly for investment purposes].

So what? You can be an Austrian and be pro-state. I may be anti-state, but I still pay taxes, and do so for fear of the state. Does that mean I'm not really anti-state?

onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:

Philosophically, I see Austrian economics as  a specific application of Taoism and Taoist philosophy, as has sometimes been pointed out on Rockwell's site. 

Please, tell me the name of the Taoist philosopher that developed the ATBC.

onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:

At this time I know of only two other "Austrian" [or post- Austrian!]s who believe in NPT version of events for 911:  Morgan Reynolds, a sometime contributor for Lewrockwell.com, and "Ace Baker" an independent 911 researcher - so there are at least 3 of us "no-planers" within the "Austrian" community!

Wow! Bravo to you for being able to discover that. So what if they are Austrians?

whakaheke replied on Sun, May 24 2009 12:44 PM | Locked

rated by 0 users

Laughing Man:

Have you started to label acquaintance as another term in your bizzaro ideology? That is what social capital supposedly is. Establishing meaningful connections with your surrounding community in order to bring positive benefits to the surroundings. Examples such as parks, playgrounds, community BBQ's etc.

No. Social capital is sometimes widely defined, but it is never defined as "meaninginful connections with your surrounding community to bring positive benefits to the surroundings." Not at all. Do you have any education in non-Austrian economics or sociology or political science? Just curious.

Laughing Man:

So you do have some loyalty to what you label yourself. Yet again the contradictionary nature presents itself. I wonder if I continue this discussion long enough will you start engaging in double think?

No, I have no ideological loyalty. As I have already stated a number of times, I merely use the terms to facilitate general communication via rough ideas of sympathies. Sympathy does not equal loyalty. They are different words with different meanings. Google it.

Laughing Man:

Bear witness to your supposed former self denounce your own present ideology.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KWdUIuID8ag

Start 34 minutes in. Enjoy.

I've already seen that (and most of the misesmedia youtube videos - I show the Peter Schiff one to prettymuch any layperson who asks me about the "economic crisis") and I already addressed here problems I saw in Rothbard's critique of Marxsim. I should point out again that I hold not loyalties to ideologies, but I did not call myself an Austro-Marxist. I called myself a Post-Austrian AnarchoMarxist. Also, you might want to to check out some of the Rothbard's essays, which can be found in The Irrepressible Rothbard, in which he displays sympathies with left-libertarianism similar to my sympathies with anarcho-Marxism. (Also the reincarnation reference was obviously a joke..)

Laughing Man:

Please, you come to a 'den' in which private property is the epidemy of human action. A place which constantly puts out page after page, article after article extoling private property and denouncing communalization. You do not walk into a den of lions and denounce them for not having enough sheep around.

HAHAHAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAHHAAHAHAAAA. Private property is the "epidemy of human action," eh? Wow. You must be a Stalinist... I know that you probably don't know what epidemy means. Google it and then look at your sentence again. Youll think its funny too.

I don't dispute the closed-mindedness of many nominal followers of the Austrian school and I have no problem entering a den of people who think theyre lions, when theyre actually slightly less enlightened sheep. ;)

Laughing Man:

You can google Conservation of Energy...so hmmm seems like they did rename it, or at least invented a new law for it.

There are scientists who call it the Law of Conservation of Energy and scientists who call it the Conservation of Mass-Energy. My original question was whether or not you had a problem with the latter. You still apparently do not understand the question. The point is that old terms were included in synthesized titles (this happens all the time in the actual sciences).

Laughing Man:

AnarchomarxistLibertaria:

I know what historical materialism in the Marxist context means. I see no argument from you here other than irrelevant ad hominem. Fitting, I guess

And I see flagrant idiocy. I presented a series of Marxist quotes concerning historical materialism in a topic labeled 'Historical Materialism' in the history chapter if you want to see actual Marxist theory on the subject. You will come to find that Marx postulated that society was not moved forth by ideas, religion, politics, nationalism. These were all mere products of the economic conditions and the relations of production. They had no force in the world. Economics was the mono-casual cataclyst to every event in human history. To paraphrase Marx: All human history is just a chronicale of class struggle. It wasn't a battle of ideas. It wasn't a battle of social power vs state power. It was the haves and the have nots. It was that simple and to open the door to the influencing of the economic base by the superstructure was the crux that would destroy the whole argument. That is historical materialism, that EVERYTHING of this world, all of our ideas about society about religion about the nation-state EVERYTHING was about which economic side you were on, the bourgeois or the proletariat. Now you can gleefully bounce around about how you've got this wonderful new brand of historical materialism that is better then the last one because some hack is telling you it is qualified but at the end of the day it is just the same Marxist eyewash that is so thoroughly destroyed by members of this institute that it quickly becoming a waste of time to entertain your ravings. Concerning the ad hominem, I attacked your argument as being debased then I attacked you for being personally ignorant. There was no skirting the argument just to insult you.

Personal attack, blah, blah. Yes. your personal attacks took the place of real arguments, so either you were engaging in fallacious ad hominem or you are a malignant narcicisst. Don't be butthurt that I didn't bother to reply to your thread about historical materialism. It's nothing personal, merely due to the fact that I see no need to comment on your dismissal of a concept that I do not defend. You are the one who makes it neccessary to follow Marx to the letter, not me. I point out the developments of Marxism and need for term qualifiers and you continue to talk about undeveloped, unqualified concepts as if I have stated that I hold those concepts and will defend them. There is a term for someone who continued to repeat the same action, but expects different consequences...

Pablo replied on Sun, May 24 2009 12:59 PM | Locked

rated by 0 users

liberty student:

But anyone who claims THEY KNOW for sure (one way or another) is probably full of crap.

I think Molyneux said it best in his video on the subject. Why try and pin 3000 disputed murders on the state, when they've already admited to hundreds of millions? Whether or not it is 'true' or not is almost irrelevant. It just makes you out to be a hoax in the eyes of whom you are speaking. Credibility is an incredibly important thing to maintain, bringing up 9-11 will certainly lose you that credibility.

Pablo replied on Sun, May 24 2009 1:24 PM | Locked

rated by 0 users

AnarchomarxistLibertaria:

I am not a 'Marxist.' I am a Post Austrian Anarcho-Marxist.

Then why include Marxist?

AnarchomarxistLibertaria:

There is no reason why non-coerced communal ownership of the factors of production is incompatible with either Austrian economics or anarchism.

I agree. I fully endorse communes, cooperatives, theocratic compounds, or any other 100% VOLUNTARY CONSENTING system. But Marx was definitely arguing for COERCED INVOLUNTARY ownership of the means of production. Read his 10 planks. The two could not be more opposed. Could I ask you what exactly do you agree with Marx about? 

Pablo replied on Sun, May 24 2009 1:27 PM | Locked

rated by 0 users

AnarchomarxistLibertaria:

I hold loyally to no formal label.

Then what is with the name?

liberty student replied on Sun, May 24 2009 1:35 PM | Locked

rated by 0 users

AnarchomarxistLibertaria:

HAAAAAHAHAHA.. what's that word for when your mind actually alters your concious perception of reality because of your desire to have reality fit your fantasies? Oh yeah, insanity.

Is that what you were doing, when you claimed a definition of ancap that was completely ad hoc?

It would seem, if your above statement is true, that you were the one engaging in insanity.

The definition I advanced is common knowledge, available to anyone who does even the most modest form of research.  Your failure to be rigorous with the quality of your statements prior to making them ultimately leads to the sort of cognitive dissonance common amongst people sharing some of your labels.

Pablo replied on Sun, May 24 2009 1:36 PM | Locked

rated by 0 users

AnarchomarxistLibertaria:

Anarcho-capitalism, if taken to mean the simply status quo markets minus the regulatory bodies and welfare state and military, is not desirable.

What are you attempting to define anarcho-capitalism as exactly? What is a 'status quo market'? What does 'minus regulatory bodies, welfare state, and military' mean?

I'm not attempting to sound nitpicky, but I think it is really important to get our definitions as clear as possible. Thanks.

liberty student replied on Sun, May 24 2009 1:42 PM | Locked

rated by 0 users

pablofrancisco:

I think Molyneux said it best in his video on the subject. Why try and pin 3000 disputed murders on the state, when they've already admited to hundreds of millions? Whether or not it is 'true' or not is almost irrelevant.

I would tend to agree with that.

pablofrancisco:

It just makes you out to be a hoax in the eyes of whom you are speaking. Credibility is an incredibly important thing to maintain, bringing up 9-11 will certainly lose you that credibility.

I would disagree with this.

Is Tom DiLorenzo losing credibility by Lincoln and Civil War revisionism?

9/11 is a fantastic psy-op because the American government has got the American people to self censor the topic.  While as it fades it gets less and less important, particularly relative to the body of lies and murder committed by states of history, the very fact that people respond with such aversion, like Pavlov's dogs says so much about the capacity of government to solicit consent through fear, guilt and intimidation.

There is nothing wrong with talking about 9/11.  It is absolutely unbelievable that many libertarians claim it is off bounds to criticize, as it is a direct criticism of the state, from it's foreign policy, to it's capacity for domestic security, to it's lawlessness in building a consensus to mass murder brown people.

Even if the "official story" (which is very diverse if you research it) is true, 9/11 is still a big tipping point in world history, and I see nothing inappropriate about it being on people's lips every day.

Look at it this way.  We now know that the Vietnam war was contrived with the false flag Gulf of Tonkin incident.  It was made up.  If you had been talking about this in 1971, people would have said you were a kook and crazy.

Now it comes out, and most people don't care.

I was re-reading the Fountainhead, and Ellsworth Toohey explains to Dominique Francon that the Stoddard Temple trial, and the loss of credibility for Howard Roark was a dead issue.  And that was a good thing, because dead issues are locked into the public consciousness as they were initially framed.  An ongoing debate has a chance to sway public opinion, but a dead debate is very hard to resurrect and correct.

I see all government conspiracies this way.  If the truth about JFK is revealed tomorrow (whatever that is) the world will not change.  The story has been written, and the tablets are too heavy to smash.

I have no stake in 9/11 truth.  There are bigger problems than 9/11.  And unfortunately, because so many people who act kooky have gotten involved, it has been rendered useless as a talking point (it should not be, but it is) to use as a lever against state power and lies.

But what does irritate me is people self-censoring.  It's bad for the libertarian movement.  We need to find our gonads and talk about government evil in ANY of it's forms.

liberty student replied on Sun, May 24 2009 1:44 PM | Locked

rated by 0 users

pablofrancisco:

What are you attempting to define anarcho-capitalism as exactly? What is a 'status quo market'? What does 'minus regulatory bodies, welfare state, and military' mean?

I'm not attempting to sound nitpicky, but I think it is really important to get our definitions as clear as possible. Thanks.

It's an ad hoc definition.  If you read on, he made it up based on observed behaviour of people who claimed to be, or he assumed to be ancaps.

I think our friend is here for the attention, because he hasn't contributed anything yet, and really doesn't seem to fit in.  Perhaps he is finding himself.  Let's hope that happens soon.

marquise replied on Sun, May 24 2009 1:48 PM | Locked

rated by 0 users

Laughing Man:

*Sigh*....You know its like..you burn Marx, poison him, beat him over the head, bury him in cement, scatter his entails on the Towers of London, drown him, kick him and call him a bourgeois hack..and his body of myths continues on

Pablo replied on Sun, May 24 2009 1:48 PM | Locked

rated by 0 users

liberty student:

Anyone who knows what anarcho-capitalism is, knows that it is a strawman.  Anarcho-capitalism is nothing more than the logical conclusion of following the non-aggression principle to it's end.  Anyone who claims it is something else is incorrect.

I want to give you a high five.

Pablo replied on Sun, May 24 2009 2:40 PM | Locked

rated by 0 users

liberty student:

  It is absolutely unbelievable that many libertarians claim it is off bounds to criticize

I don't believe it off bounds to criticize. Only, bringing it up in a conversation with your average joe will generally get you lumped in with some very annoying people. Once that happens, good luck trying to educate someone on the true evils of the state.

liberty student:

And unfortunately, because so many people who act kooky have gotten involved, it has been rendered useless as a talking point (it should not be, but it is) to use as a lever against state power and lies.

That is all I was saying. I believe there are hundreds of other talking points that do not drag along there 'kooky' baggage to the table. It is all too common in people to dismiss someone based on one idea that they disagree with, (even if that someone does not endorse the views! Take Ron Paul for example, poor fellow got tossed in with the conspiracy crowd even though he NEVER once endorsed their views). If you would like to start with credibility, it is good practice not to hint at fringe ideas which can not be proved at this time. IMO, many of theories in 9-11 could very well be true, but focusing on the state POSSIBLY killing 3000, as opposed to having signed confessions for HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS is potentially detrimental.

liberty student:

But what does irritate me is people self-censoring.  It's bad for the libertarian movement.  We need to find our gonads and talk about government evil in ANY of it's forms.

I'm going to have to disagree with you for the most part here. See above. I do appreciate your ballsyness for speaking the truth regardless of the scenario, I just don't know if it is true that it is good for the libertarian movement.

Pablo replied on Sun, May 24 2009 2:43 PM | Locked

rated by 0 users

liberty student:

Perhaps he is finding himself.  Let's hope that happens soon.

He seems to agree with the NAP, so its only a matter of time now. 

liberty student replied on Sun, May 24 2009 2:56 PM | Locked

rated by 0 users

pablofrancisco:

I do appreciate your ballsyness for speaking the truth regardless of the scenario, I just don't know if it is true that it is good for the libertarian movement.

Mises was a good example of standing up for what you believe in, even if it is unpopular.  It comes at a cost, but if we're not willing to pay that cost, then we're not going to achieve very much IMO.

None of this precludes being selective, discreet, polite.

Pablo replied on Sun, May 24 2009 3:13 PM | Locked

rated by 0 users

liberty student:

Mises was a good example of standing up for what you believe in, even if it is unpopular. 

Non-aggression is popular. I would much prefer someone to accept the NAP than to believe one way or the other on 9-11. I for one believe that 9-11 is relatively unimportant when compared to the wholesale slaughter/famine/violence/theft which is proven to be initiated by the state on a day to day basis.

liberty student replied on Sun, May 24 2009 4:08 PM | Locked

rated by 0 users

pablofrancisco:

I for one believe that 9-11 is relatively unimportant when compared to the wholesale slaughter/famine/violence/theft which is proven to be initiated by the state on a day to day basis.

I can agree with that.  I also don't think there is much upside to pursuing it above all other agendas.

I've had lousy luck converting truthers.  Most of them are anti-state, but still expect a state, and like liberals struggle to see that the state causes poverty, the truthers have trouble seeing that the state systemically is the creator of lies and violence.  It's always about personalities.  Bush bad, Obama bad, Clinton bad.

I did want to say that outside the US, people have no problem talking about 9/11.  It's only in the US that this conspiracy theorist hangup exists on these issues.  People outside the US regularly comment on how poor media coverage and opinion making is inside the US.

Juan replied on Sun, May 24 2009 4:20 PM | Locked

rated by 0 users

liberty student:

It's only in the US that this conspiracy theorist hangup exists on these issues.

Andrew Cain replied on Sun, May 24 2009 5:08 PM | Locked

rated by 0 users

AnarchomarxistLibertaria:

No. Social capital is sometimes widely defined, but it is never defined as "meaninginful connections with your surrounding community to bring positive benefits to the surroundings." Not at all. Do you have any education in non-Austrian economics or sociology or political science? Just curious.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_capital

Your admission that in can be 'widely defined' gives credence to my claim that it is ambiguous.

AnarchomarxistLibertaria:

I've already seen that (and most of the misesmedia youtube videos - I show the Peter Schiff one to prettymuch any layperson who asks me about the "economic crisis") and I already addressed here problems I saw in Rothbard's critique of Marxsim. I should point out again that I hold not loyalties to ideologies, but I did not call myself an Austro-Marxist. I called myself a Post-Austrian AnarchoMarxist. Also, you might want to to check out some of the Rothbard's essays, which can be found in The Irrepressible Rothbard, in which he displays sympathies with left-libertarianism similar to my sympathies with anarcho-Marxism. (Also the reincarnation reference was obviously a joke..)

You 'apply' Austrianism and Marxism...that makes you a Austro-Marxist.

AnarchomarxistLibertaria:

Private property is the "epidemy of human action," eh? Wow. You must be a Stalinist... I know that you probably don't know what epidemy means. Google it and then look at your sentence again. Youll think its funny too.

Incorrect word usage on my part. I shall rephrase, private property is the apex of human action.

AnarchomarxistLibertaria:

There are scientists who call it the Law of Conservation of Energy and scientists who call it the Conservation of Mass-Energy. My original question was whether or not you had a problem with the latter. You still apparently do not understand the question. The point is that old terms were included in synthesized titles (this happens all the time in the actual sciences).

My point was that the new definition did not somehow contradict the old definition.

AnarchomarxistLibertaria:

Personal attack, blah, blah. Yes. your personal attacks took the place of real arguments, so either you were engaging in fallacious ad hominem or you are a malignant narcicisst. Don't be butthurt that I didn't bother to reply to your thread about historical materialism. It's nothing personal, merely due to the fact that I see no need to comment on your dismissal of a concept that I do not defend. You are the one who makes it neccessary to follow Marx to the letter, not me. I point out the developments of Marxism and need for term qualifiers and you continue to talk about undeveloped, unqualified concepts as if I have stated that I hold those concepts and will defend them. There is a term for someone who continued to repeat the same action, but expects different consequences..

If one does not follow Marx to the letter they can hardly be called a 'MARXist'. His name is in the term for a reason. However, what do you feel like? Do you feel like labels don't matter this minute or do you want to defend the labels you self-identify with? And will I constantly have to ask you post by post as to which is prevelant? Answer this...what were these Marxist 'developments' made on? Original concepts of  Marx himself. Your like a Neo-Keynesian who is disgruntled because I refuse to acknowledge Neo-Keynesian equations and attack the foundation of the equations, Keynes himself.

Pablo replied on Sun, May 24 2009 5:29 PM | Locked

rated by 0 users

liberty student:

Most of them are anti-state, but still expect a state

It annoys me to death. I've even come up with a rough outline of how people think based largely around there ability to reason. Four phases: 1) "Ignorance is bliss"- doesn't recognize that there are problems in the world. 2) "The Pointer"- Sees things they do not agree with in the world and constantly points them out ("Oil is bad!") but prefers not to offer a solution. Often younger people/college students who have overheard a conversation on the topic. 3) "The Solver"- Often times overlaps with #2, but instead of just pointing, proposes solutions based on shortsided reality. ("Oil is bad, so the government needs to stop its use!") These are generally the socialist/marxist/utopianists who don't care how people will react to stimuli, just that the stimuli be there. They pay no attention to how reality actually operates and generally think that leaving things up to the state will solve any problem. 4) "The Thinker"- Is able to follow theories into the realm of how they will actually work. They are able to see the effects not only on the intended party, but also other parties who may be effected.

Sphairon replied on Thu, May 28 2009 5:42 AM | Locked

rated by 0 users

By the way, for all of those who think "the movement" is actively trying to distance itself from conspiracy themes. Here are a few headlines of the last 7 days from LewRockwell.com:

"Rampant Inflation, Bank Runs, Empty Grocery Shelves
Suburban survivalists prepare for government crimes."

"Another Federal False Flag
Coming soon, to a city near you. Article by Michael Gaddy"

"Modern Survivalism
Everything you do should improve your position in life, even if nothing goes wrong. Article by Jack Spirko."

The mere fact that LRC is advocating survivalism (just think of all the bad connotations of that word!) and connecting false flag terrorism with the US government would be enough to make most MSM anchors faint. What do you want more?