No, enron happened because of ridiculous accounting, screwed up incentives, and people speculating in the stock market who have no idea what they are doing (due to the 401k tax loophole etc.)
OK Sounds like utilitarianism is like a tool that can be used for things considered bad or wrong, or for things considered good or right.
You wrote that if a person is a certain type of utilitarian, they can justify the most heinous things.
How does subscribing to one philosophy or one scientific method over another, effectively prevent a person from justifying heinous things?
If someone accepts natural law ethics or an ethic based on Aristotle, how does that effectively prevent that person from justifying heinous things?
"It would be preposterous to assert apodictically that science will never succeed in developing a praxeological aprioristic doctrine of political organization..." (Mises, UF, p.98)
adam knott: How does subscribing to one philosophy or one scientific method over another, effectively prevent a person from justifying heinous things? If someone accepts natural law ethics or an ethic based on Aristotle, how does that effectively prevent that person from justifying heinous things?
You have to restate the questions because they aren't making sense. Are you asking if I embrace natural rights that means that I cannot justify say murdering someone?
'It is difficult to imagine any normal person wishing to meet Marx for a third time.' - Alexander Gray, The Socialist Tradition
OK Restating question.
Above, you write: "If you are a act utilitarian then you can justify the most heinous things."
My question is:
Why can't I be a natural law ethicist or Aristotlian ethicist and justify the most heinous things?
I understand your statement to mean that if someone chooses another philosophy besides utilitarianism, this will somehow prevent them from justifying heinous things.
In other words, why abandon utilitarianism in favor of another method or philosophy, when I can justify heinous things while subscribing to any philosophy?
I read your statement as meaning that people who subscribe to some non-utilitarian philosophies won't or can't justify heinous things.
Can you clarify?
adam knott: Why can't I be a natural law ethicist or Aristotlian ethicist and justify the most heinous things?
Because then you wouldn't really be a natural law theorist.
adam knott:In other words, why abandon utilitarianism in favor of another method or philosophy, when I can justify heinous things while subscribing to any philosophy?
Here is your hypothetical: You are a doctor and you have 5 patients who each need a separate transplant [ heart, lungs, stomach etc ] and a healthy patient walks into your office. Now according to utilitarian ethic you can kill this healthy person and distribute his organs to the 5 patients. Killing one saves five. You cannot do that with natural rights theory.
"Because then you wouldn't really be a natural law theorist."
*****
For example, a priori, if a founding father justified slavery, then they were not really a natural law theorist?
I would have thought they were simply natural law theorists who mistakenly applied natural law theory, or natural law theorists who purposely contradicted their sincerely held philosophy for reasons of expedience or convenience.
****
Are you saying that we can deduce, a priori, what kind of social theorist a person is by the things they justify?
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
You forgot to add the Rothbard tag team approach.
There are so many good ways to go about it but a good move to start out with is the "FTW non-sequicutioner." First you wait for your opponent to set himself up by writing a fairly long, well thought out argument that, unbeknownst to him, is easily refuted by millions of readily available Rothbard quotes. Once he's posted it, the first Rothbardian responds with a quote then the other tag-teamer finishes him off with an "FTW!"
This one is actually better if your opponent is already dizzy from the "platitudinous pwnslam." This is where you chop your opponents post into quote blocks each followed by a brief one-liner response such as "fallacious," "assertion," "no," "ur utilitarian," "wrong," "humans act," "empiricist nonsense," etc.
Example of a platitudinous pwnslam followed by an FTW non-sequicutioner:
I only agree with a meagre 98.6 percent of Rothbards canon: (long thought out multiple paragraph response)
(long thought out multiple paragraph response)
Roth2thIzzoBard2thIzzay: I only agree with a meagre 98.6 percent of Rothbards canon: (paragraph one) Wrong I only agree with a meagre 98.6 percent of Rothbards canon: (paragraph two) Humans act is synthetic a priori. I only agree with a meagre 98.6 percent of Rothbards canon: (paragraph three) Go. Read. Rothbard. I only agree with a meagre 98.6 percent of Rothbards canon: (paragraph four) strawman
I only agree with a meagre 98.6 percent of Rothbards canon: (paragraph one)
(paragraph one)
Wrong
I only agree with a meagre 98.6 percent of Rothbards canon: (paragraph two)
(paragraph two)
Humans act is synthetic a priori.
I only agree with a meagre 98.6 percent of Rothbards canon: (paragraph three)
(paragraph three)
Go. Read. Rothbard.
I only agree with a meagre 98.6 percent of Rothbards canon: (paragraph four)
(paragraph four)
strawman
RthbrdFan69: "Free-market capitalism is a network of free and voluntary exchanges in which producers work, produce, and exchange their products for the products of others through prices voluntarily arrived at." --Murray Rothbard
"Free-market capitalism is a network of free and voluntary exchanges in which producers work, produce, and exchange their products for the products of others through prices voluntarily arrived at."
--Murray Rothbard
SonOfRthbrd: ROTHBARD FTW!
ROTHBARD FTW!
Roth_is_MYshepherd: Rothbard
Rothbard
"The social sciences are philosophy, history, psychology, sociology, political science, law, anthropology, geography, economics and linguistics. So it is not simply ethics and economics."
Mises held that praxeology was the science of human action. At some point, I believe Rothbard agreed with this. Praxeology would seem to be social science. How do you relate praxeology to your definition of the social sciences above? Do you equate praxeology with economics, so that the two would be interchangeable in your conception?
adam knott:For example, a priori, if a founding father justified slavery, then they were not really a natural law theorist?
No I wouldn't consider him natural rights theorist.
adam knott:I would have thought they were simply natural law theorists who mistakenly applied natural law theory, or natural law theorists who purposely contradicted their sincerely held philosophy for reasons of expedience or convenience.
Then they are either idiots who never really understood the ideology they propose or that they undervalue the theory they propose so much that they are willing to abandon it.
adam knott:Mises held that praxeology was the science of human action. At some point, I believe Rothbard agreed with this. Praxeology would seem to be social science. How do you relate praxeology to your definition of the social sciences above? Do you equate praxeology with economics, so that the two would be interchangeable in your conception?
Praxeology can be applied to all the disciplines above. Praxeology is really like a tool more then a discipline in my mind. Perhaps I would call it a 'school of thought'
GilesStratton: It's not as if I've not tried. It's just, when I do, people out compete me using the methods outlined above. You see, I argue that fractional reserve banking is legitimate I'm called a fraudster, I argue that it's efficient and I get called a Keynesian. I argue that the market is not infallalible and that institutions may be necessary to correct "market failure" such a global warming or various other public goods issues I get called a "socialist" and a "statist". I argue that religion may be necessary for some of rational ethic and I get called a "nihilist" and a "religious nut" in the same breath. I don't think I need continue.
It's not as if I've not tried. It's just, when I do, people out compete me using the methods outlined above. You see, I argue that fractional reserve banking is legitimate I'm called a fraudster, I argue that it's efficient and I get called a Keynesian. I argue that the market is not infallalible and that institutions may be necessary to correct "market failure" such a global warming or various other public goods issues I get called a "socialist" and a "statist". I argue that religion may be necessary for some of rational ethic and I get called a "nihilist" and a "religious nut" in the same breath.
I don't think I need continue.
We're sorry that you're wrong; but what would you have us do? Nod like obedient little children? If you want to understand why you're wrong you need to read Mises/Hayek/Wicksell (maybe not him), Malthus and others.
Esuric: We're sorry that you're wrong; but what would you have us do? Nod like obedient little children? If you want to understand why you're wrong you need to read Mises/Hayek/Wicksell (maybe not him), Malthus and others.
Oh the irony!
The atoms tell the atoms so, for I never was or will but atoms forevermore be.
Yours sincerely,
Physiocrat
Physiocrat:Oh the irony!
How so?
Esuric: Physiocrat:Oh the irony! How so?
The fact is Giles has probably read more than most people on this board including myself. This is not to say that I agree with him on all points- I'm against FRB and I think argumentational ethics has its merits but is flawed. His whole point is to read and appreciate other authors other than Rothbard, hence avoiding the Rothbardolatry aptly demonstrated by Hashem.
Physiocrat:The fact is Giles has probably read more than most people on this board including myself. This is not to say that I agree with him on all points- I'm against FRB and I think argumentational ethics has its merits but is flawed. His whole point is to read and appreciate other authors other than Rothbard, hence avoiding the Rothbardolatry aptly demonstrated by Hashem.
The Theory of Money and Credit is entirely devoted to explaining how FRB leads to the creation of fiduciary media and thus trade cycles. Throughout the book Mises explains why the Banking school did not go far enough, that the 100% backing of notes could and would still cause an arbitrary divergence between the market rate and natural rate. Bank deposits/credit transactions are money, and thus should be fully covered. Where does Mises defend FRB, or Hayek for that matter?
Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE
“It was the aim of the Currency School to prevent the periodical recurrence of general economic crises by setting a maximum limit to the issue of uncovered bank notes. An obvious further step is to close the gap that was not reckoned with in their theory and consequently not provided for in their policy by limiting the issue of fiduciary media in whatever form, not merely that of bank notes. If this were done it would mean it would no longer be possible for the credit-issuing banks to underbid the equilibrium rate (natural rate) of interest and introduce into circulation new quantities of fiduciary media with the immediate consequence of an artificial stimulus to business and the inevitable final consequence of the dreaded crises.” Page 439
"The doctrine of the elasticity of fiduciary media, or more correctly expressed, of their automatic adjustment at any given time to the demand for money in the broader sense, stands at the very center of modern discussions of banking theory. We have to show that this doctrine does not correspond to the facts, or at least not in the form in which it is generally expounded and understood." Pg 339, Theory of money and Credit, Ludwig von Mises
"If it were not for monetary disturbances, the rate of interest would be determined so as to equalize the demand for and supply of savings. This equilibrium rate, as I prefer to call it, he christens the natural rate of interest. In the money economy, the actual or money rate of interest ("Geldzins") may differ from the equilibrium or natural rate, because the demand for and the supply of capital do not meet in their natural form but in the form of money, the quantity of which available for capital purposes may be arbitrarily changed by the banks, causing disproportionalities." Pg 215, Lecture 1, Prices and production, F.A von Hayek
"Now, so long as the money rate of interest coincides with the equilibrium rate, the rate of interest remains "neutral" in its effects on the prices of goods, tending neither to raise nor to lower them. When the banks, however, lower the money rate of interest below the equilibrium rate, which they can do by lending more than has been entrusted by them, i.e., by adding to the circulation, this must tend to raise prices (either absolutely or relatively)." -Hayek
"Nevertheless, it is perfectly clear that, in order that the supply and demand for real capital should be equalized, the banks must not lend more or less than has been deposited with them as savings. And this means naturally that they must never allow the effective amount of money in circulation to change.... The banks can either keep the demand for real capital within the limits set by the supply of savings, or keep the price level steady; but they cannot preform both functions at once." Page 218, Lecture 1, Prices and production.
So what are we talking about again? Rothbard seems to be a convenient scapegoat for those who are not truly interested in Austrian economics. It seems like most of the people here are more interested in political philosophy and law instead of actual economics. If I'm wrong, please show me. I haven't read Hayek's pure theory, nor have I read Human action, but I doubt that Mises and Hayek would make a complete 180.
Physiocrat: Esuric: Physiocrat:Oh the irony! How so? The fact is Giles has probably read more than most people on this board including myself. This is not to say that I agree with him on all points- I'm against FRB and I think argumentational ethics has its merits but is flawed. His whole point is to read and appreciate other authors other than Rothbard, hence avoiding the Rothbardolatry aptly demonstrated by Hashem.
wrong physiocrat, giles doesn't give a damn about liberty and much more that tries to belittle the person, he does it constantly with only ad hominem objections... Hashem did a great job in providing intellectual sensibilities with quotes. But this whole line of discussion is silly to begin with.
"I used to see a mountain as a mountain.. Thereafter.. when I saw a mountain; lo! it was not a mountain.. yet now of final tranquillity: I see a mountain just as a mountain as I used to.." - Master Yuan; molon labe
Esuric:If you want to understand why you're wrong you need to read Mises/Hayek/Wicksell (maybe not him), Malthus and others.
Malthus? I'm not sure what you think he has to do with the ABCT, perhaps I'm wrong, but I don't think he does. As for Wicksell, Hayek and Mises, a few points. Mises' monetary views changed greatly throughout his intellectual development, so yes, he was against FRB by the time he came to write Human Action but when he was writing The Theory of Money and Credit I don't think you can say the same thing. Much less so when one considers that the Austrian theory of the business cycle only began at the end of The Theory of Money and Credit when he was drawing out the implications of the non neutrality of money. Hayek did the subsequent work on the relative price effects of monetary injections and Rothbard combined the two lines of Wicksellian thought when he wrotes Man, Economy and State. So saying I need to read Mises to know why I'm wrong sounds a bit off to me, likewise for Hayek he did think there were advantages to fractional reserves in banking. Hayek went so far as to advocate competative fiat monies. I'm sure you wouldn't invoke that, would you?
Austrianism came to be associated with rejection of FRB mainly with Rothbard and subsequent authors writing in this line of Austrian economics: Huelsmann, Block, Hoppe, Salerno and other such writers. Perhaps the most important work dedicated to an exploration of FRB was that of Huerta de Soto, which, if you must know, I've read twice. So before you start telling me I need to read Hayek and Mises, I suggest you consider that I have, and came to a conclusion based on a comparison of the views of Rothbard et al and Selgin, White, Horwitz, Yeager and others. So, I'm going to have to ask you the same question: have you read The Theory of Monetary Institutions, Free Banking in Britain and Competition in Currency by Dr White, how about some of Selgin's books on the subject, such as The Fluttering Veil (coauthored with Yeager), or even Horwitz' Microfoundations and Macroeconomics? How about some of their journal articles, that have been published in top mainstream journals.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
Malthus didn't entirely explore the nature of fiduciary media on trade cycle volatility, but he did notice its initial effects:
Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE "Whenever, in the actual state of things, a fresh issue of notes comes into the hands of those who mean to employ them in the prosecution and extension of profitable business, a difference in the distribution of the circulating medium takes place, similar in kind to that which has been last supposed; and produces similar, though of course comparatively inconsiderable effects, in altering the proportion between capital and revenue in favour of the former. The new notes go into the market as so much additional capital, to purchase what is necessary for the conduct of the concern. But, before the produce of the country had been increased, it is impossible for one person to have more of it, without diminishing the shares of some others. This diminution is affected by the rise of prices, occasioned by the competition of the new notes, which puts it out of the power of those who are only buyers, and not sellers, to purchase as much of the annual produce as before: While all the industrious classes – all those who sell as well as buy – are, during the progressive rise of prices, making unusual profits; and, even when this progression stops, are left with the command of a greater proportion of the annual produce than they possessed previous to the new issues."
Another criticism of the banking school:
Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE But, with our currency, or rather the currency of the country banks… The effects are different. The interest of money, when it is abundant, is not reduced, but the circulation… Is diminished; and on the contrary, when money is scarce, an enlargement of issues takes place, instead of a rise in the rate of interest. The country bankers never vary the interest they charge… He must, of necessity, have one fixed charge, whatever it may be: for he never can know what the true rate is. With a metallic currency, on the contrary, the Banker would always know the state of the market. In the first place, he could not lend money until it had been saved and placed in his hands, and he would have a particular amount to lend. On the other hand, he would have more or fewer persons wanting to borrow, and in proportion as the demand would exceed or fall short of the amount he had to lend, he would raise or lower his terms… But in consequence, of the Country Banks being not only dealers in incipient capital, but the issuers of currency, the demand for currency and the demand for capital are so mingled together that all knowledge of either is totally confounded. Pg 209 –Thomas Joplin.
So I'm supposed to take your word for it? Hayek and Mises, later in their lives, made complete 180's in favor of FRB? I have Human action in front of me, and will read it once I'm done with Bohm-Bawerk; until then I simply can't verify/refute that claim. But if you're right, you're right.
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