Political Theory

Re: What is to be done?

wombatron — Sun, 07 Dec 2008 19:56:50 GMT

ThorsMitersaw:
can you tell me more?

Long goes into detail in Chapter 8 of Wittgenstein, Austrian Economics, and the Logic of Action. To summarize, logic is not something that we constrain on the world (impositionism), or that the world constrains on us (reflectionism), because to think of logic as a constraint is to imply that one could imagine either an illogical world or illogical thought, both of which are impossible. Logic simply is.

Re: What is to be done?

ThorsMitersaw — Sun, 07 Dec 2008 07:24:43 GMT

wombatron:

Jon Irenicus:

Reflectionist? Do you mean epistemologically?

I'm pretty sure he does. Rothbard does take a reflectionist position, if I recall correctly, although I think Long is correct in instead transcending the reflectionist-impositionist dichotomy.

can you tell me more?

Re: What is to be done?

hayekianxyz — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 19:04:34 GMT

Jon Irenicus:

Although, his work on the socialist calculation debate was somewhat detrimental to the Austrian cause and his chapter on free banking in Individualism and Economic Order is nonsense from what I can tell. His views on politics are even sillier, what are his works of law like? From what I've read Hoppe is highly critical of Hayek. This said my biggest problem with Hayek is just that he is incredibly dull to read. Out of interest what is his The Counter Revolution of Science like?

There are samples taken from it on the Mises website. It's generally very accurate in diagnosing the problems faced by scientism and the mentality that inheres in it. Apparently Hayek's Law, Legislation and Liberty (I think that's the title) is his superior work, whereas the Constitution of Liberty is manifestly inferior. As for Hoppe, he is a Kantian but many of his arguments stand regardless as far as methodology goes. I think the Kantian framework is misleading and makes Austrianism sound too idealist (in the ontological/epistemological sense.) If you read Plauche's paper on Aristotelianism and praxeology you should get an idea of what I mean.

Ok thanks for the advice.

Re: What is to be done?

Jon Irenicus — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 18:48:40 GMT

Although, his work on the socialist calculation debate was somewhat detrimental to the Austrian cause and his chapter on free banking in Individualism and Economic Order is nonsense from what I can tell. His views on politics are even sillier, what are his works of law like? From what I've read Hoppe is highly critical of Hayek. This said my biggest problem with Hayek is just that he is incredibly dull to read. Out of interest what is his The Counter Revolution of Science like?

There are samples taken from it on the Mises website. It's generally very accurate in diagnosing the problems faced by scientism and the mentality that inheres in it. Apparently Hayek's Law, Legislation and Liberty (I think that's the title) is his superior work, whereas the Constitution of Liberty is manifestly inferior. As for Hoppe, he is a Kantian but many of his arguments stand regardless as far as methodology goes. I think the Kantian framework is misleading and makes Austrianism sound too idealist (in the ontological/epistemological sense.) If you read Plauche's paper on Aristotelianism and praxeology you should get an idea of what I mean.

Re: What is to be done?

ryanpatgray — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 18:33:22 GMT

GilesStratton:
I think libertarianisms biggest problem is that it has always been dominated by those it has chosen to form alliances with and has really failed to distinguish itself. Most people see libertarians as socially liberal and leftist and fiscally conservative, most of its mainstream proponents say just that. They claim that it is the best of Republicans and the best of the Democrats, which is simply not true. Libertarianism rightly understood is radically different from anything else out there. Most people aren't even aware that libertarianism actually entails anarchism.

I think this is (depending on how we use it) potentially a blessing. One of the most effective tools in the libertarian toolbox is the World's Smallest Political Quiz. You can criticize its accuracy if you like but the World's Smallest Political Quiz is an excellent recruitment tool in my experience. Once people realize they fall somewhere within the libertarian quadrant, in my experience, they tend to gradually drift northward within that quadrant as they start interacting with other libertarians and reading libertarian books. There is nothing wrong with identifying oneself as a libertarian if you are an an-cap. If you are an an-cap you are a far-north libertarian according to the Advocates for Self Government. It is a tool that has brought many, many, many libertarians into the libertarian movement.

Re: What is to be done?

hayekianxyz — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 19:11:52 GMT

Nitroadict:
I agree that we don't need to convert all the "sheep", which is a mathematical impossibility, anyway.

We need to concentrate on converting a few of them, & try to create more small groups of intellectuals, so that in the grand scheme, we do not have a centralized tier of "elites", but rather co-operating & competing groups of intellectuals that both represent a movement, but by no means monopolize a voice over it.

I also agree on the new label; the utilization of a new, existing label, or the creation of an entirely new one, might help further the change in tactics that will be required (as well as possibly reduce infighting), so as the reduce the probability of people reverting to the same old ways (and subsequently, falling to the will of the elites) due to the oncoming series of changes (collapse of USA economy, the arrival of newer superpowers "policing" the world, further steps towards a global government, etc.).

I think libertarianisms biggest problem is that it has always been dominated by those it has chosen to form alliances with and has really failed to distinguish itself. Most people see libertarians as socially liberal and leftist and fiscally conservative, most of its mainstream proponents say just that. They claim that it is the best of Republicans and the best of the Democrats, which is simply not true. Libertarianism rightly understood is radically different from anything else out there. Most people aren't even aware that libertarianism actually entails anarchism.

In this I think that the adoption of a new lable and new tactics would do wonders. Unfortunately libertarians have no natural allies, there may be some groups that will be more prone to libertarian ideas than others but this doesn't mean they can be trusted to be our allies. It merely means we need to focus on converting them whilst being wary of being coopted by them.Most of all we need the stay the away from the LP and anything associated with mainstream libertarianism. We are far more radical than anything else out there. I've always been in favour of Ron Paul, but I think it was luck, and the political process will only ever corrupt the movement.

I definately agree with what you said in terms of US economy collapsing, it would be greatly helpful for libertarians to distance themself from the "free markets" of the Republicans etc. The great depression helped the spread of Austrian ideas, unfortunately the Keynesian revolution made all the progress disappear, but I don't see there being another one of those.

I like what you said about small groups of intellectuals. I think there needs to be an emphasis on radicalism, ultimately radical ideas will create an emotional response that moderate ideas just won't get, combined with the dying of the US economy I think it could advance the movement. I think small groups will also have the advantage of being difficult to co-opt and relatively focused. Especially if the small groups choose to focus on specific geographical areas leading to secession, since there wouldn't be the need for as great a number of people to participate as there would in anything national and these groups would focus on areas that agree with them in terms of culture.

Anyway, I'm sure I missed a lot out and this was a rather incoherent post, so, sorry.

Re: What is to be done?

hayekianxyz — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 18:56:59 GMT

Jon Irenicus:

Mises was indeed the better economist, and I think also philosopher. And so with Hayek. And so with Hoppe. And so with Reisman. Rothbard, on the other hand, was a system-builder. He integrated Aristotelian views on ethics and epistemology with Misesian economics, which is a great project. It needs to be taken forward though and given a more powerful defence, which I think Long and Plauche have begun doing in the realm of epistemology. I agree by the way on the labels "libertarian" (I hate it) &c. They are in need of replacement.

Well I've still to read a lot of Mises. I intend to getting around to Human Action sooner or later. Although from what I understand Rothbard's improved the Austrian theory of monopoly, Rothbard was also far better at putting his arguments more clearly than Mises. Nonetheless from what I know Mises was the better economist and philosophy (not read any of his works on epistemology mind).

As for Hayek, as far as I know his major contribution to Austrian theory was building on Mises business cycle theory so as to incorperate the theory of capital structure. I'm not sure if that's correct though. I've only really read Individualism and Economic Order by Hayek, as well as some articles on here so I can't say I know much about him. Although, his work on the socialist calculation debate was somewhat detrimental to the Austrian cause and his chapter on free banking in Individualism and Economic Order is nonsense from what I can tell. His views on politics are even sillier, what are his works of law like? From what I've read Hoppe is highly critical of Hayek. This said my biggest problem with Hayek is just that he is incredibly dull to read. Out of interest what is his The Counter Revolution of Science like?

Hoppe is wonderful and I'm looking forward to reading The Ethics and Economics of Private Property and A Theory of Capitalism and Socialism. D:TGTF is an absolutely brilliant book and by far my favourite piece of libertarian literature, I also need to reread his Economic Science and the Austrian Method, which I read a while ago and didn't understand completely but nonetheless found very informative. I'm also very fond of his writing style. In regards to his epistemology, as I understand he is a Kantian like Mises, how do you view that in regard to Rothbard's attempt to integrate Aristotlean views on ethics and epistemology that you mentioned?

As for Reisman, I know very little about him, his work on exploitation seems very interesting so I think I'll read that soon. I have to say he is extremely obnoxious though, which whilst amusing at time grows old.

Re: What is to be done?

Nick. B — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 18:16:16 GMT

GilesStratton:

Nick. B:
We need a Rothbard "Rothbardianism". It's more for the intellectuals; for some reason they flock to things with isms, anity, or ology, don't ask me why.

Or alternatively we need to move forward. Rothbard was wonderful don't get me wrong, he's done more for the libertarian movement than anybody else, he practically founded the modern libertarian movement. Granted, I think Mises was a better economist, but I don't really know since I've not read HA, or even a lot by either of them. In any case despite the contributions made by Rothbard, which were numerous, we need to build on that and move forward, much as Hoppe has done. Hoppe is moving libertarianism forward from Rothbard. With D:TGTF, he brilliantly extends praxeology to anaylse the state and compare democracy and monarchy, and is correct where Rothbard was wrong in terms of democracy as a step up from monarchy. I've still yet to read The Ethics and Economics of Private Property, but from what I understand Rothbard thought very highly of Hoppe's attempt to extend praxeology into the field of ethics. In any case, all I am saying is that it isn't necessary to make a cult out of him.

Can we at least agree to use Rothbard's system as the skeletal frame for this hypothetical ism?

GilesStratton:

We also need to drop the words libertarian, anarchist and capitalist.

Libertarian is ugly.

Whereas the other two are only ever going to get negative emotional reactions. Anarchism is associated with leftist thugs who do nothing other than throw bricks and bombs throught windows, at best people think of angsty teenagers who listen to punk when they hear the word. Capitalism apparently represents the status quo. The truth is libertarians don't want to abolish the government, we want to establish competing providers of defence, which thankfully is far more palatable.

How about Voluntaryist?

Re: What is to be done?

Nick. B — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 18:16:14 GMT

GilesStratton:

Nick. B:
We need a Rothbard "Rothbardianism". It's more for the intellectuals; for some reason they flock to things with isms, anity, or ology, don't ask me why.

Or alternatively we need to move forward. Rothbard was wonderful don't get me wrong, he's done more for the libertarian movement than anybody else, he practically founded the modern libertarian movement. Granted, I think Mises was a better economist, but I don't really know since I've not read HA, or even a lot by either of them. In any case despite the contributions made by Rothbard, which were numerous, we need to build on that and move forward, much as Hoppe has done. Hoppe is moving libertarianism forward from Rothbard. With D:TGTF, he brilliantly extends praxeology to anaylse the state and compare democracy and monarchy, and is correct where Rothbard was wrong in terms of democracy as a step up from monarchy. I've still yet to read The Ethics and Economics of Private Property, but from what I understand Rothbard thought very highly of Hoppe's attempt to extend praxeology into the field of ethics. In any case, all I am saying is that it isn't necessary to make a cult out of him.

Can we at least agree to use Rothbard's system as the skeletal frame for this hypothetical ism?

GilesStratton:

We also need to drop the words libertarian, anarchist and capitalist.

Libertarian is ugly.

Whereas the other two are only ever going to get negative emotional reactions. Anarchism is associated with leftist thugs who do nothing other than throw bricks and bombs throught windows, at best people think of angsty teenagers who listen to punk when they hear the word. Capitalism apparently represents the status quo. The truth is libertarians don't want to abolish the government, we want to establish competing providers of defence, which thankfully is far more palatable.

How about Voluntaryist?

Re: What is to be done?

Nitroadict — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 18:01:48 GMT

GilesStratton:

Nick. B:
We need a Rothbard "Rothbardianism". It's more for the intellectuals; for some reason they flock to things with isms, anity, or ology, don't ask me why.

Or alternatively we need to move forward. Rothbard was wonderful don't get me wrong, he's done more for the libertarian movement than anybody else, he practically founded the modern libertarian movement. Granted, I think Mises was a better economist, but I don't really know since I've not read HA, or even a lot by either of them. In any case despite the contributions made by Rothbard, which were numerous, we need to build on that and move forward, much as Hoppe has done. Hoppe is moving libertarianism forward from Rothbard. With D:TGTF, he brilliantly extends praxeology to anaylse the state and compare democracy and monarchy, and is correct where Rothbard was wrong in terms of democracy as a step up from monarchy. I've still yet to read The Ethics and Economics of Private Property, but from what I understand Rothbard thought very highly of Hoppe's attempt to extend praxeology into the field of ethics. In any case, all I am saying is that it isn't necessary to make a cult out of him.

This brings me onto the second part of your post.

Nick. B:
The fact is we're gonna need a couple sheep if we want political influence.

No we don't need sheep, we need a small group of libertarian intellectuals with a radical message to focus on a few key areas in order to promote secession. We also need entrepreneurs willing to put the words of these intellectuals into practise, this means forming PDAs and free banks instead of merely talking about it.

Sheep don't do anything, the masses never have and never will. Relying on them is silly. The libertarian movement needs to purge various factions, continue to purify and extend it's theories and to combine them. Libertarians spend far too much time attacking each other to do anything to challenge the state. We also need to drop the words libertarian, anarchist and capitalist.

Libertarian is ugly.

Whereas the other two are only ever going to get negative emotional reactions. Anarchism is associated with leftist thugs who do nothing other than throw bricks and bombs throught windows, at best people think of angsty teenagers who listen to punk when they hear the word. Capitalism apparently represents the status quo. The truth is libertarians don't want to abolish the government, we want to establish competing providers of defence, which thankfully is far more palatable.

I agree that we don't need to convert all the "sheep", which is a mathematical impossibility, anyway.

We need to concentrate on converting a few of them, & try to create more small groups of intellectuals, so that in the grand scheme, we do not have a centralized tier of "elites", but rather co-operating & competing groups of intellectuals that both represent a movement, but by no means monopolize a voice over it.

I also agree on the new label; the utilization of a new, existing label, or the creation of an entirely new one, might help further the change in tactics that will be required (as well as possibly reduce infighting), so as the reduce the probability of people reverting to the same old ways (and subsequently, falling to the will of the elites) due to the oncoming series of changes (collapse of USA economy, the arrival of newer superpowers "policing" the world, further steps towards a global government, etc.).

Re: What is to be done?

Jon Irenicus — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 17:58:40 GMT

Mises was indeed the better economist, and I think also philosopher. And so with Hayek. And so with Hoppe. And so with Reisman. Rothbard, on the other hand, was a system-builder. He integrated Aristotelian views on ethics and epistemology with Misesian economics, which is a great project. It needs to be taken forward though and given a more powerful defence, which I think Long and Plauche have begun doing in the realm of epistemology. I agree by the way on the labels "libertarian" (I hate it) &c. They are in need of replacement.

Re: What is to be done?

hayekianxyz — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 17:44:37 GMT

Nick. B:
We need a Rothbard "Rothbardianism". It's more for the intellectuals; for some reason they flock to things with isms, anity, or ology, don't ask me why.

Or alternatively we need to move forward. Rothbard was wonderful don't get me wrong, he's done more for the libertarian movement than anybody else, he practically founded the modern libertarian movement. Granted, I think Mises was a better economist, but I don't really know since I've not read HA, or even a lot by either of them. In any case despite the contributions made by Rothbard, which were numerous, we need to build on that and move forward, much as Hoppe has done. Hoppe is moving libertarianism forward from Rothbard. With D:TGTF, he brilliantly extends praxeology to anaylse the state and compare democracy and monarchy, and is correct where Rothbard was wrong in terms of democracy as a step up from monarchy. I've still yet to read The Ethics and Economics of Private Property, but from what I understand Rothbard thought very highly of Hoppe's attempt to extend praxeology into the field of ethics. In any case, all I am saying is that it isn't necessary to make a cult out of him.

This brings me onto the second part of your post.

Nick. B:
The fact is we're gonna need a couple sheep if we want political influence.

No we don't need sheep, we need a small group of libertarian intellectuals with a radical message to focus on a few key areas in order to promote secession. We also need entrepreneurs willing to put the words of these intellectuals into practise, this means forming PDAs and free banks instead of merely talking about it.

Sheep don't do anything, the masses never have and never will. Relying on them is silly. The libertarian movement needs to purge various factions, continue to purify and extend it's theories and to combine them. Libertarians spend far too much time attacking each other to do anything to challenge the state. We also need to drop the words libertarian, anarchist and capitalist.

Libertarian is ugly.

Whereas the other two are only ever going to get negative emotional reactions. Anarchism is associated with leftist thugs who do nothing other than throw bricks and bombs throught windows, at best people think of angsty teenagers who listen to punk when they hear the word. Capitalism apparently represents the status quo. The truth is libertarians don't want to abolish the government, we want to establish competing providers of defence, which thankfully is far more palatable.

Re: What is to be done?

hayekianxyz — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 17:42:23 GMT

Nick. B:
We need a Rothbard "Rothbardianism". It's more for the intellectuals; for some reason they flock to things with isms, anity, or ology, don't ask me why.

This brings me onto the second part of your post.

Nick. B:
The fact is we're gonna need a couple sheep if we want political influence.

Re: What is to be done?

ryanpatgray — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 15:25:46 GMT

Nick. B:
We need a Rothbard "Rothbardianism". It's more for the intellectuals; for some reason they flock to things with isms, anity, or ology, don't ask me why. And also it would get some of these academics off their obsession over Marxism. The fact is we're gonna need a couple sheep if we want political influence.

As I recall, the obsession over Marxism began as a reaction to the Cold War. There is a certain type of intellectual who reacts against their own society for the sake of reacting against their own society. Perhaps we simply need to emphasize just how against our current paradigm anarco-capitalism really is. Then we might attract the type of intellectual who was once starry-eyed over Marx.

Re: What is to be done?

Nick. B — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 01:40:49 GMT

Solid_Choke:

Nick. B:

Well I think on the intellectual scale we should develop a philosophy based on Rothbard's works. We should do everything in our power to make sure it doesn't evolve into a closed system like objectivism. My first arguement for us developing "Rothbardianism"; hell if a fourth rate philosoper like Marx can philosopy named after him, why not a man of Murray's intellect?

I've always thought of Rothbard as a less confused, 20th century, less charismatic, Anti-Marx.

Exactly, we need an anti-marx. We need a powerful idealolagy for the intelluctauls to be happy. So they'll be happy to give up their precious Marxism in the name of a new god to worship. A new far reaching Libertarian idealogical philsophy.