4 ms·

Oh boy from experience this is a very loaded discussion. I personally like the Austrian framework because I find it aesthetically pleasing (I guess I'm a sucke

by kriro 8y ago

Oh boy from experience this is a very loaded discussion. I personally like the Austrian framework because I find it aesthetically pleasing (I guess I'm a sucker for deduction). Some of the writing is simply intellectually interesting and also very scholastic for lack of a better word. For example, even if you completely disagree with the analysis I'd argue that "America's Great Depression" is a very good read simply from an intellectual point of view and "Man, Economy, State" is a very good tome that contains a framework of thought. I also enjoy the science theoretical musings quite a bit. The writing on Aristotelian ontology is very good for example. There's also works where I constantly shake my head at the implications and political conclusions but intellectually I still love them. "The Ethics of Liberty" is probably the clearest example of this. Do I think that letting a baby starve to death because it is basically a parasite is morally desirable: no. Do I find the idea of trying to deduce an entire ethical framework from first principles fascinating and the way it is done interesting: yes There are lots of things about AE that I find irking but the core theory and the science theoretical basis is very interesting/intriguing to read. I also like that pretty much everything is readily available on mises.org. I wish all "schools of thought" would be this forward thinking.

jcfrei 8y ago
I read the ethics of liberty as well and came to the conclusion that the deduction of its ethical framework is flawed (though interesting nonetheless). Here's a link for those interested in my write-up: http://jcfrei.com/on-the-ethics-of-liberty/ http://jcfrei.com/on-the-ethics-of-liberty/
stillbourne 8y ago
Did you see the guys title? Assistant Professor, Department of Economics, George Mason University. I'm sorry but what was yours? > Do I think that letting a baby starve to death because it is basically a parasite is morally desirable: no. Do I find the idea of trying to deduce an entire ethical framework from first principles fascinating and the way it is done interesting: yes Oh, so while the thought of a baby starving to death is detestable, you'd still let it happen because... an economics based framework for ethics is somehow superior to a principled one. Got it. How very forward thinking of you.
- davvolun 8y ago
  I think you can respect the authority of a professional without this type of attack. How do you know the person you're responding to isn't a tenured Professor of Economics somewhere? To respond to an article on the internet, do we all need to present our credentials? Second, wtf?! At no point does the person you're responding to say they would let a baby starve to death. Period. They respect the idea of trying to deduce an ethical framework from first principles, but then very clearly disagree with the logically deducted conclusions. Whether it's because the framework is based on incomplete or false principles, or there is flawed logic in the process, or whatever, OP clearly does not agree with the framework. I don't know if you didn't read carefully or what, but you're waaaay off base here.
  - stillbourne 8y ago
    But it is, if you read about the concept of the "parasite class" the idea that government social programs that try to keep societal poverty at a minimum is a parasite on the productive class (taxpayers.) His use of the word parasite, in relation to starving children is a dog whistle coded to say, "No one wants these people to starve but because taxes are a theft of that imposes on my liberty then they should be starved for the greater good of the economy." It is the implication of his statement, if not the intent. As for asking for his credentials, that's because Austrian/Anarcho capitalism is often quackery of the highest order espoused by people who are not economists, and often part of that "cult of anti-intellectualism" that Asimov is oft quoted to say is so intertwined into American society.
    - AnimalMuppet 8y ago
      Who, exactly, mentioned the "parasite class"? Not davvolun. Not kriro. Not the article. Who? The Ethics of Liberty? You seem to be ascribing to davvolun or kriro positions that they did not take, by association with some other thing that you say is a dog whistle for something else. You then state that children starving is the implication of these statements... that the people you're arguing with didn't say and, by my reading, don't support. Maybe you're yelling at the wrong people, for the wrong reasons?
st1ck 8y ago
> Do I find the idea of trying to deduce an entire ethical framework from first principles fascinating and the way it is done interesting: yes I wonder if there is anyone less deranged than Rothbard working within the same deontological framework. I honestly struggled reading "The Ethics of Liberty" because I can't accept his base principles. I was hoping to find some kind of justification for homestead principle, but he basically says it's self-evident. Maybe for American libertarians it is, but for most people it's not. David Friedman's consequentialist approach is probably less aesthetically pleasing, but at least his "The Machinery of Freedom" shows that you don't have to be a lunatic to be an AnCap.

by kriro 8y ago

jcfrei 8y ago

I read the ethics of liberty as well and came to the conclusion that the deduction of its ethical framework is flawed (though interesting nonetheless). Here's a link for those interested in my write-up: http://jcfrei.com/on-the-ethics-of-liberty/ http://jcfrei.com/on-the-ethics-of-liberty/

stillbourne 8y ago

Did you see the guys title? Assistant Professor, Department of Economics, George Mason University. I'm sorry but what was yours? > Do I think that letting a baby starve to death because it is basically a parasite is morally desirable: no. Do I find the idea of trying to deduce an entire ethical framework from first principles fascinating and the way it is done interesting: yes Oh, so while the thought of a baby starving to death is detestable, you'd still let it happen because... an economics based framework for ethics is somehow superior to a principled one. Got it. How very forward thinking of you.

davvolun 8y ago
I think you can respect the authority of a professional without this type of attack. How do you know the person you're responding to isn't a tenured Professor of Economics somewhere? To respond to an article on the internet, do we all need to present our credentials? Second, wtf?! At no point does the person you're responding to say they would let a baby starve to death. Period. They respect the idea of trying to deduce an ethical framework from first principles, but then very clearly disagree with the logically deducted conclusions. Whether it's because the framework is based on incomplete or false principles, or there is flawed logic in the process, or whatever, OP clearly does not agree with the framework. I don't know if you didn't read carefully or what, but you're waaaay off base here.
- stillbourne 8y ago
  But it is, if you read about the concept of the "parasite class" the idea that government social programs that try to keep societal poverty at a minimum is a parasite on the productive class (taxpayers.) His use of the word parasite, in relation to starving children is a dog whistle coded to say, "No one wants these people to starve but because taxes are a theft of that imposes on my liberty then they should be starved for the greater good of the economy." It is the implication of his statement, if not the intent. As for asking for his credentials, that's because Austrian/Anarcho capitalism is often quackery of the highest order espoused by people who are not economists, and often part of that "cult of anti-intellectualism" that Asimov is oft quoted to say is so intertwined into American society.
  - AnimalMuppet 8y ago
    Who, exactly, mentioned the "parasite class"? Not davvolun. Not kriro. Not the article. Who? The Ethics of Liberty? You seem to be ascribing to davvolun or kriro positions that they did not take, by association with some other thing that you say is a dog whistle for something else. You then state that children starving is the implication of these statements... that the people you're arguing with didn't say and, by my reading, don't support. Maybe you're yelling at the wrong people, for the wrong reasons?

st1ck 8y ago

> Do I find the idea of trying to deduce an entire ethical framework from first principles fascinating and the way it is done interesting: yes I wonder if there is anyone less deranged than Rothbard working within the same deontological framework. I honestly struggled reading "The Ethics of Liberty" because I can't accept his base principles. I was hoping to find some kind of justification for homestead principle, but he basically says it's self-evident. Maybe for American libertarians it is, but for most people it's not. David Friedman's consequentialist approach is probably less aesthetically pleasing, but at least his "The Machinery of Freedom" shows that you don't have to be a lunatic to be an AnCap.