General

Re: Austrian Arrogance

Daniel James Sanchez — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 16:11:08 GMT

Leviathan:
What's most ironic, of course, is that the prospect of you facing me in a one-on-one economics debate is somewhat akin to that of an Ewok dueling Darth Vader.

... in his OWN thread titled "Austrian Arrogance".

I think that's a fitting note to end on.

Locked. (Plus I see a flame war between you and BAAWA brewing.)

You're free to debate the merits of anarcho-communism/capitalism here so long as it is civil, but regarding calling us arrogant, after that display of hypocrisy, you haven't got a leg to stand on.

Re: Austrian Arrogance

LvMIenthusiast — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 16:05:20 GMT

I only cursorily looked through the first page in the thread, but I fail to see the ubiquitous "arrogance" of the Austrian school.

My run in with certain a professor last semester, actually suggests the exact opposite of what you're saying. The professor, who I actually happen to like, accused the Austrian school and their acolytes to be pedantic and downright snobby.

However, if you sit in his class for an hour, you will quickly see who's arrogant and who isn't.

Like most out-right socialists, he was fond of making dogmatic assertions and even got a portion of the class to go along with him (unfortunately).

Instead of addressing the issue at hand, they resort to downright name calling, thereby avoiding the actual issue at hand.

Re: Austrian Arrogance

Angurse — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 15:42:47 GMT

Leviathan:

What's most ironic, of course, is that the prospect of you facing me in a one-on-one economics debate is somewhat akin to that of an Ewok dueling Darth Vader.

And this kind of attitude is?

Re: Austrian Arrogance

banned — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 14:13:09 GMT

Leviathan:
What's most ironic, of course, is that the prospect of you facing me in a one-on-one economics debate is somewhat akin to that of an Ewok dueling Darth Vader.

lol, bro, anyone who gives any credence to LTV has absolutely zero understanding of economic science, they're just normativists.

Re: Austrian Arrogance

Leviathan — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 13:46:58 GMT

Knight_of_BAAWA:
Actually, it's just an objection to style. In the future, I'd suggest you not lie your ass off in order to cover for your idiotic and impossible-to-actually-justify "economics" stance.

There is no such thing as the right to not be offended, you know. And there's no such thing as the right to a gold star just for posting. Nor a right to not have your childish and inherently self-contradictory "economics" system critiqued.

Not that I'm done with the other posts here (I'll probably address them later in the day), but this post did make me laugh as a clear demonstration of exactly the sort of snobbish and obnoxious arrogance that I keep referring to.

What's most ironic, of course, is that the prospect of you facing me in a one-on-one economics debate is somewhat akin to that of an Ewok dueling Darth Vader.

Re: Austrian Arrogance

Knight_of_BAAWA — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 13:30:20 GMT

Knight_of_BAAWA:
It's the style-over-substance fallacy he's promulgating. Several people here do it, actually.

Leviathan:
Actually, it's objection to both style and substance

Actually, it's just an objection to style. In the future, I'd suggest you not lie your ass off in order to cover for your idiotic and impossible-to-actually-justify "economics" stance.

There is no such thing as the right to not be offended, you know. And there's no such thing as the right to a gold star just for posting. Nor a right to not have your childish and inherently self-contradictory "economics" system critiqued.

Re: Austrian Arrogance

Justin Laws — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 10:09:11 GMT

You guys ought to take the same stance Mises would when guys like the OP come along. This thread feels like it accomplished a whole lot of nothing.

Re: Austrian Arrogance

filc — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 10:05:49 GMT

Leviathan:

filc:
The fact that your a communist posting on an AE forum would seem highly arrogant to me.

That's a shame. If I were to rebut the long post that probably took you a while to write today or tomorrow, would that indicate the same thing?

It would be counter productive for you to do so. We'd be arguing past each other never addressing our premise's.

Instead I'd rather start bottom up with you and identify our discrepancies. Then go from there. There is no point in arguing the details on the top if our fundamentals are whats in conflict. Your are welcome to respond to that thread though.

Re: Austrian Arrogance

Andrew Cain — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 09:59:53 GMT

Leviathan:
Your opinion is an anecdotal and biased one, as you mentioned, and popular perception elsewhere indicates otherwise. Regardless, how is the "main" an attack on Conza when I didn't mention him until prompted for a specific example?

And you don't have a bias? Please, it is a rather shoddy argument to simply say 'well you are biased, therefore you don't count.' Did you construct this argument without the example of Conzo in your mind? If so then who did you base it on so I can properly acknowledge it as an attack on them.

Leviathan:
That would be a euphemism for arrogance, as the "assuredness" leads to pompous dismissal of socialist opponents as stupid or economically uninformed.

If you are filled with self-doubt then that is not our problem. Second guess yourself to maintain that you are not 'assured.' Frankly I care not.

Leviathan:
In my opinion, Austrians and their theories have always been asininely stupid, and modern Austrian economics has no coherent theory of the firm or knowledge of labor economics, a flawed and inaccurate business cycle theory, contradictory and ultimately inferior arguments in the socialist calculation debate, etc. Worse, it spawns a legion of economically ignorant Internet proponents who have no coherent theory of the firm or knowledge of labor economics, a flawed and inaccurate business cycle theory, contradictory and ultimately inferior arguments in the socialist calculation debate, etc. However, I don't use that belief as an excuse to simply mock and disparage every single Austrian opponent I encounter without reason. I attempt to engage anyone with arguments until they've resorted to personal attacks, and then I generally reciprocate. But I don't instigate, and I have no belief that all Austrians are unintelligent and ignorant.

Oh how suddenly you become so assured of the fact that Austrians are supposedly wrong. Is that arrogance I detect in your style? Please, do not think yourself the first socialist to come on here thinking Austrianism is the epiphany of mankind. Stick around, we have many here who would love to discuss economics with you and I would certainly love to discuss the idiocy of socialism itself.

Leviathan:
Yes, I had a fellow anarchist on RevLeft tell me that he was banned there for advocacy of communism, so I'm quite aware that the RPF isn't libertarian. Funnily enough, he also told me that he was banned here for arguing with a moderator, which is why I had the same perceptions of this forum at first.

We don't ban people simply because they propound a theory. They are ban for not following forum rules which can easily be found in the help section. If you need help finding it I can provide a link. Frankly I like having one or two socialists around. Keeps us on top of our game.

Re: Austrian Arrogance

DanielMuff — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 09:48:09 GMT

Leviathan:
Really? Can you provide any examples of me treating others worse than they've treated me?

Besides the attack on Conza?

Leviathan:
I won't be withdrawing anything. I've expressed in numerous posts my belief that capitalism necessitates the existence of the state, and from that I derive my belief that all proponents of capitalism are statists. If you want to debate that at length, start a thread about it. It would give us an opportunity to investigate the fraudulent and oxymoronic ideology of "anarcho"-capitalism more clearly.

It has been given.

Leviathan:
I'm not surprised that you'd think that, but no. That use of quotation marks reflected my belief about the nature of "anarcho"-capitalism, whereas placing "economist" in quotes is literally an attack on an individual and his or her economic credentials.

An individual? At least you weren't thinking in collectivist terms.

Leviathan:
Generalization? Noting that the Austrian school is marginal is an accurate comment, as it has almost no influence on modern economics, even for a heterodox school.

You are thinking of wrong quote. This is the second quote i was referring to: "Attacks on Spanish anarchism are characteristic of Internet "anarcho"-capitalists, which was my point."

Leviathan:
I'm inclined to think so, considering that the vast majority of my ideology is divergent and opposed to theirs and even the foundations for our "shared" belief are radically different. Conversely, there is nearly universal support of Austrian economics here even if there is internal dissent.

I don't see how your explanation of why "anarcho-capitalism" is oxymoronic is different from the Randians.

Leviathan:
By that logic, your comment here is also a personal attack, since my own "personal attack" was an accusation of a prevalence to engage in personal attacks. BTW, what "group of people"? You might have LS down your throat here; isn't that inconsistent with the methodological individualist perspective?

The Austrians. Or do you prefer "class of people"?

Are you saying that two methodological individuals can't use the method to come to the same conclusion?

Leviathan:
I would hope so, considering that I quoted members from there in the first post. But why is a "libertarian" forum banning dissenters for arguing with mods?

Which forum are you referring to?

Leviathan:
That's not evidence of much, considering that there's far more homogeneity of opinion on here than there is on RevLeft.

The "Opposing Ideologies" ghetto section is particularly heterogeneous.

Leviathan:
But more importantly, I have no influence over the policies of RevLeft or actions of other members, so why bring it up? Are you some kind of collectivist?

No.

Re: Austrian Arrogance

Conza88 — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 09:46:21 GMT

Daniel Muffinburg:

liberty student:

Leviathan:
but my point was that elitist incivility can build to a point where every post is a screaming personal attack against others rather than focus on their arguments.

And yet you've been treated much better than you have treated others here.

Heck, he's been treated much better than how some of his fellow RevLefties treat other RevLefties.

Or how RevLefties would treat Misesians...

Conza88:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/mises-fucks-t112036/index.html?t=112036

Truthisnonexistent:
Have you guys ever encountered these people? I swear they would go through hell just to save a business owner.. I've gotten into a debate with this one guy who keeps asking "What's wrong with "exploitation"?" "What's wrong with "renting" yourself?" "Please show me a definition of "undesirable working hours"

Mindtoaster:
*edit* You know what, just fuck it.

All but a few of those rich scumbags are getting put against the wall if we get our way

Re: Austrian Arrogance

Conza88 — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 09:42:39 GMT

Leviathan:
but my point was that elitist incivility can build to a point where every post is a screaming personal attack against others rather than focus on their arguments.

And you attribute this to me. Evidence thanks. Back up your claim that "every post is a screaming personal attack against others rather than focus on their arguments", or withdraw your lies. To count I must actually be engaged in a discussion with a "leftie", otherwise it's meaningless.

Leviathan:
Regardless of what the reason for the ban was (RPF bans dissenters, so I'm not overly concerned with their ban reasons alone),I'm thinking that was the case with him and with many others, for that matter.

You didn't think, that's the problem. You should have alleviated your ignorance before making baseless assumptions & jumping to conclusions.

Leviathan:

Conza88:
Haha, what? Good joke. Make it funny next time. I'd ask for evidence of the views you proclaimed I hold above, but you haven't got any - so don't worry.

Don't worry; you're not special. You're just a good example of the trend I mentioned.

What trend? Your example is bunk, as has been shown.

Leviathan:
Conza88:
Regardless, you think people from the new age Venus project, those who believe in technocracy / anarcho-communism & a post scarcity world... you think they should be taken seriously? lol.

Most anarchists and socialists strike me as being more economically informed than the Austrian school's Internet proponents, but I don't take that as an excuse to mock and disparage everyone on this forum instead of engaging them in arguments.

And when have I ever done that. Evidence thanks. Back up your claims. Prove it, or withdraw.

Leviathan:

Conza88:
lol Who are you anyway?

I'm Leviathan.

That is your current handle / username. What was yours at rpf? And what was your previous one here? Do you go around introducing yourself as "Leviathan"? It's probably fitting anyway.

Leviathan:

Conza88:
I got banned because I wouldn't let a moderator called LE [conservative constitution fundamentalist], get away with obfuscation & lies. I used the socratic method - walked her through the logic, and when it got to the clincher, the obvious - she refused to answer and tried to ignore the questions. I merely continued to point this out, when she used fallacy after fallacy to try avoid the unavoidable. I got banned for it. There was uproar from other users, it got emotional for her, very unprofessional. Anyway their loss, I moved on and so should you. Was for the best, much more productive now.

Yes, but there was no one there that denied that you had a history of engaging in personal attacks and incivility, regardless of the ban reason. And since you did that in the midst of fellow economic rightists, my guess is that you'd be even more hostile around leftists.

Wrong, there were heaps that denied it. That fact that you haven't read the right threads, doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Basically you are accusing me of ad hominems. I don't do that. This I do however, when necessary (first 30 seconds).

"Economic rightists?"

It's amusing that you continue to get wrong.. the most basic and fundamental differences between Austrian School of Economics and Libertarianism.

Economics is meant to be value free, or do you disagree? In regards to "rightists", being a Libertarian - I reject both the "left wing" and "right wing" - it is a false dichotomy. Never the less, your "guess" is wrong.

Leviathan:
Your opinion is an anecdotal and biased one, as you mentioned, and popular perception elsewhere indicates otherwise.

Appeal to popularity fallacy.

Leviathan:

Laughing Man:
Like BAAWA implied, this seems to be more about his style then his substance. Really a silly discussion in my mind. One of the other minor points deals with this 'arrogance.' It is not so much arrogance but assuredness in the rightness of what we propose.

That would be a euphemism for arrogance, as the "assuredness" leads to pompous dismissal of socialist opponents as stupid or economically uninformed.

You cannot argue, that you cannot argue. What is the first thing that comes to mind when someone tries to do exactly that?

Laughing Man:
Also concerning the Ron Paul forums, I hear the 'horror' stories from both Conzo and Daniel, both who I respect enough to trust their stories.

Another contributing factor was that the same moderator and a few other members would appeal to the Constitution and limited government, using Ron Paul to do so. I constantly pointed out, that it's more than likely Ron Paul is a closet anarcho-capitalist. I then found that motor-home diaries video which confirmed it. They lost their ability to deny it. The option was confront their inner contradictions & inconsistencies or find a reason to ban me. The resulting excuse was what you are hearing Leviathan parrot here. I called a FDR, New Deal supporter known troll a "nit-wit" after he admonished me. No joke.. lol

Re: Austrian Arrogance

Angurse — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 09:28:21 GMT

Leviathan:
Attacks on Spanish anarchism are characteristic of Internet "anarcho"-capitalists, which was my point. Anarchists are addressed with a ragged and meager assortment of anti-anarchist texts over and over again instead of engaged seriously.

Exactly. Perhaps you should consider a more fitting title next time.

Leviathan:

I certainly do, given the nature of my opposition to the fraudulent and oxymoronic ideology of "anarcho"-capitalism. However, I do not imply that it is impossible for "anarcho"-capitalists to be intelligent or economically informed, even if I attack their theories. Therein lies the fundamental difference.

You should consider a more fitting title next time. I'm not really sure how an ideology can be fraudulent and I could care less about whether anarcho-capitalism "really is anarchy" its a pointless debate, it doesn't change anything. Its already been shown that anarcho-capitalists don't think its impossible for people with different views not to be intelligent, so there really isn't a difference at all. Everyone is an individual. You just seem to be have sour grapes because of the actions (or tone) of some.

Leviathan:
I did not claim that it was permissible; I claimed that it was an exception to a rule and not characteristic of the more fundamental nature of anarchist organization. Are you implying that murder would not occur at all in "anarcho"-capitalist society and that a single murder would prove that there are fundamental deficiencies?That seems quite utopian.

I have yet to see the general rule established in "anarchist" Spain at all. But again I cannot see why conditions (such as war time fervor) need be mentioned at all if we agree its impermissible. Impermissible is impermissible. "Anarcho"-capitalist society is a very open idea, certainly murder could occur. I never implied otherwise. However a voluntaryist or libertarian society definitely could not have such mass-atrocities.

Leviathan:

I've read plenty of Bolloten myself; I was the one who wrote the entire "criticism" section of the Spanish Revolution Wikipedia article. My impressions are that Bolloten does not provide substantial empirical research to indicate that violent coercion was the general rule of Spanish anarchist society so much as demonstrating that it existed (which it did), and then moving to imply or openly claim that the majority of anarchist society was organized in this way without basis.

From what I've read, most of the counter-arguments are merely conditions-of-war sympathy (similar to that put forth by McKay) and not actual refutations. Nor have I found a display of facts leading to any sort of overall picture besides little liberty. I've read Antony Beevor but he's way too biased to be taken seriously.

Leviathan:
Western market capitalism utilizes the same hierarchical structure as Eastern state capitalism, but they are different modes of production because there are other important differences between them.

Exactly. There isn't a free market, only state capitalism.

Leviathan:
It does, actually. You accused the author of excessive anti-capitalist bias; I said that it was not excessive because we incorporate Soviet "socialism" into the capitalist tradition, in a sense, as a result of their similar hierarchical structure. So his "anti-capitalist" bias is effectively an anti-authoritarian bias, which I'd say is permissible for an anarchist.

The point of presenting "anarchist" Spain accurately. Being an "anarchist" and incorporating Soviet "socialism" into the capitalist tradition doesn't change anything. As I've already said:

Angurse:
The author shows a clear bias and is really just chasing anarcho-capitalism (which is to be expected given who the author is) and not sticking to showing the glory or horror that was "anarchist" Spain. And I could really care less about how "you can call it anarchy if you narrowly define state."

And I really didn't see any anti-authoritarian bias from him, just preferences.

Re: Austrian Arrogance

Leviathan — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 09:18:49 GMT

liberty student:
Who?

All of them. As mentioned, advocacy of capitalism necessitates statism.

liberty student:
And yet you've been treated much better than you have treated others here. So any supposed elitist incivility has been on your part thus far in our relationship.

Really? Can you provide any examples of me treating others worse than they've treated me?

liberty student:
Are you thinking it, or do you know it? If you know it, please substantiate it. If you are only thinking it, I don't think anyone particularly cares.

Out of curiosity, have you ever actually read any of his posts there? Here's an example:

I refuse to be associated with traditional socialists, because I'm not that dumb. Why would I associate myself with a label that has been trashed because of scum like that? Fools who want to get rid of the state, because they think it protects private property, ROFL! By it's mere existence, it has to violate it. Fools, who violate the non aggression axiom (principle) and private property rights.

There was no informed anti-anarchist commentary in that post; merely crude and insulting personal attacks. If anyone here knows Alex Fibman or whatever he calls himself, he's the same way.

liberty student:
You claimed I wrote it. Did I or did I not write it? If I did not, shouldn't you correct yourself?

I don't have to correct myself. Anyone who reads your post can see that it contains a statement that there is no cause for Austrians to be angered by the posts, and you now wish to claim that you didn't actually state this because a quick counter-example emerged.

liberty student:
We're not a movement.

Of course you are. A very marginal one without much support off the Internet, but a movement nonetheless. There's no complete conformity of ideas (there never is, among any ideology), but there's enough commonality to apply the label.

liberty student:
Which is arbitrary and somewhat meaningless. Judging people by class is no different than judging them by race. It's a form of collectivism.

Except for the fact that race is an immutable characteristic that categorizes only extreme heterogeneity, but sure, other than that minor difference, you're entirely right. ;)

liberty student:
Many of us subscribe to methodological individualism here. If you're going to make collective generalizations, then you're starting out with a fallacious position in every critique.

That there is a commonality of positions here in support for Austrian economics is an accurate observation. I don't know why you'd wish to deny it, but your denials do not change that.

liberty student:
So basically you object to his arrogance as you perceive it. You aren't actually challenging the merit of his statements. Fair enough. When substance is uncomfortable, let fashion reign.

A challenge to the merit of his statements would imply that they were to be taken seriously in the first place, and considering that he merely made assertions without arguments or external references, there's not much basis for that. But if you want to see rebuttal of his commentary, look at the thread I mentioned earlier.

liberty student:
Actually, you've made an accusation, and we'd like you to substantiate it. You've received a wide berth here, but that doesn't mean you won't be expected to debate in good faith.

So explain who in particular, or withdraw the comment.

I won't be withdrawing anything. I've expressed in numerous posts my belief that capitalism necessitates the existence of the state, and from that I derive my belief that all proponents of capitalism are statists. If you want to debate that at length, start a thread about it. It would give us an opportunity to investigate the fraudulent and oxymoronic ideology of "anarcho"-capitalism more clearly.

Incidentally, what "wide berth"? I've been engaged by most active posters here, as far as I can tell.

Daniel Muffinburg:
Ah! I see you placed "anarcho" in quotes. You must be arrogant as well.

I'm not surprised that you'd think that, but no. That use of quotation marks reflected my belief about the nature of "anarcho"-capitalism, whereas placing "economist" in quotes is literally an attack on an individual and his or her economic credentials.

Daniel Muffinburg:
Btw, what's with the generalization in the second quote?

Generalization? Noting that the Austrian school is marginal is an accurate comment, as it has almost no influence on modern economics, even for a heterodox school.

Daniel Muffinburg:
I see you have a commonality with the Randians. How could that be? Are you not of a different class as they?

I'm inclined to think so, considering that the vast majority of my ideology is divergent and opposed to theirs and even the foundations for our "shared" belief are radically different. Conversely, there is nearly universal support of Austrian economics here even if there is internal dissent.

Daniel Muffinburg:
Again, with the generalizations.

That was a response to a generalization, and I did it specifically for the purpose of highlighting the fact that I didn't engage in personal attacks on that basis.

Daniel Muffinburg:
This thread is a personal attack on an entire group of people.

By that logic, your comment here is also a personal attack, since my own "personal attack" was an accusation of a prevalence to engage in personal attacks. BTW, what "group of people"? You might have LS down your throat here; isn't that inconsistent with the methodological individualist perspective?

Daniel Muffinburg:
I knew it!!!!

I would hope so, considering that I quoted members from there in the first post. But why is a "libertarian" forum banning dissenters for arguing with mods?

filc:
This post is a fundamental appeal to emotion. Whether someone is aarogant or not doesn't mean they are wrong or right. Arrogance is a matter of opinion.

I did not claim otherwise; I merely expressed the opinion that excessive arrogance might inhibit civil discussion.The fact that you're unwilling to even agree indicates a thing or two about your own attitude, though. ;)

filc:
The fact that your a communist posting on an AE forum would seem highly arrogant to me.

That's a shame. If I were to rebut the long post that probably took you a while to write today or tomorrow, would that indicate the same thing?

filc:
Ultimately how do you expect to gain any fruit from this thread? Austrian's being arrogant does not disprove their positions. Ours is a logical position, not a rhetorical position. Whats yours?

Only a concession of arrogance, which you've effectively offered. That can hopefully be a basis for recovery, after all.

filc:
We're still waiting for you to show us a communist who is knowledgeable about the SVT, Praxeology, and Catallitics. When we are done with the ad-hominem game and want to start actually discussing the logical framework of AE let us know!

How would I ascertain whether an anarchist or socialist is knowledgeable about the topic, as the majority don't focus on criticism of Austrian economics?

filc:
Or if I started the thread would you indulge me?

So visit the thread, if you haven't.

Daniel Muffinburg:
Heck, he's been treated much better than how some of his fellow RevLefties treat other RevLefties.

That's not evidence of much, considering that there's far more homogeneity of opinion on here than there is on RevLeft. But more importantly, I have no influence over the policies of RevLeft or actions of other members, so why bring it up? Are you some kind of collectivist?

Re: Austrian Arrogance

DanielMuff — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 09:06:21 GMT

liberty student:

Leviathan:
but my point was that elitist incivility can build to a point where every post is a screaming personal attack against others rather than focus on their arguments.

And yet you've been treated much better than you have treated others here.

Heck, he's been treated much better than how some of his fellow RevLefties treat other RevLefties.