3 ms·

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 o

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?
  - stillbourne 8y ago
    Are we both reading the same comment from kirro where he calls a starving baby "basically a parasite." Because "parasite" is a very loaded word in Austrian Economics/Anarcho-Capitalism. Edit: This is the problem that I have with people that espouse Austrian Economics. Either you have a very shallow understanding of its philosophical system or you are being deliberately ignorant of its deficiencies. If you expand out its propositions to its ultimate conclusions it basically requires the genocide of the poverty class, or as they like to call it "the parasite class," in order to work reasonably.
    - AnimalMuppet 8y ago
      The exact statement by kirro was: > Do I think that letting a baby starve to death because it is basically a parasite is morally desirable: no. I read that as kirro rejecting the idea, not endorsing it. If it's not rejecting the idea of "parasite", it definitely is a rejection of the implications of the idea. That is, kirro is not attempting to dog whistle. kirro is in fact explicitly rejecting the dog whistle implications.
      - stillbourne 8y ago
        No, you can't get away with that, he used very specific phrasing, this sentence: > Do I think that letting a baby starve to death because it is basically a parasite is morally desirable: no. Is very different from this sentence: > Do I think that letting a baby starve to death is morally desirable: no. The unessential clause in this statement is, "because it is basically a parasite." Stating it this way allows him to affirm that he thinks starving babies are a parasite on society while also signaling that he is virtuous enough to think its death is an overall negative. What is not stated, rather implied is the but, the but that belongs between the sentence: > Do I think that letting a baby starve to death because it is basically a parasite is morally desirable: no. And the sentence: > 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 Basically stating: Should starving babies die? No, but, we should consider the entire ethical framework of economics from first principles that maybe requires that these starving babies die so that people are not robbed of their liberty by the taxation that subsidizes the starving babies. The absurdity is that you defend it by exclaiming, "Those exact words are never stated!" No they are implied, I said they are implied since the beginning. Do you need a dictionary definition of what implication is in order to understand my argument? To understand his argument? To understand exactly how diseased of a philosophy AnCap is? Because that is part of the problem with AnCap, is that it implies much but states little. The implication is that modern principled society is flawed and we should return to a feudal state where the wealthy get to piss on all the plebeians because who fucking cares about peons.

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?
- stillbourne 8y ago
  Are we both reading the same comment from kirro where he calls a starving baby "basically a parasite." Because "parasite" is a very loaded word in Austrian Economics/Anarcho-Capitalism. Edit: This is the problem that I have with people that espouse Austrian Economics. Either you have a very shallow understanding of its philosophical system or you are being deliberately ignorant of its deficiencies. If you expand out its propositions to its ultimate conclusions it basically requires the genocide of the poverty class, or as they like to call it "the parasite class," in order to work reasonably.
  - AnimalMuppet 8y ago
    The exact statement by kirro was: > Do I think that letting a baby starve to death because it is basically a parasite is morally desirable: no. I read that as kirro rejecting the idea, not endorsing it. If it's not rejecting the idea of "parasite", it definitely is a rejection of the implications of the idea. That is, kirro is not attempting to dog whistle. kirro is in fact explicitly rejecting the dog whistle implications.
    - stillbourne 8y ago
      No, you can't get away with that, he used very specific phrasing, this sentence: > Do I think that letting a baby starve to death because it is basically a parasite is morally desirable: no. Is very different from this sentence: > Do I think that letting a baby starve to death is morally desirable: no. The unessential clause in this statement is, "because it is basically a parasite." Stating it this way allows him to affirm that he thinks starving babies are a parasite on society while also signaling that he is virtuous enough to think its death is an overall negative. What is not stated, rather implied is the but, the but that belongs between the sentence: > Do I think that letting a baby starve to death because it is basically a parasite is morally desirable: no. And the sentence: > 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 Basically stating: Should starving babies die? No, but, we should consider the entire ethical framework of economics from first principles that maybe requires that these starving babies die so that people are not robbed of their liberty by the taxation that subsidizes the starving babies. The absurdity is that you defend it by exclaiming, "Those exact words are never stated!" No they are implied, I said they are implied since the beginning. Do you need a dictionary definition of what implication is in order to understand my argument? To understand his argument? To understand exactly how diseased of a philosophy AnCap is? Because that is part of the problem with AnCap, is that it implies much but states little. The implication is that modern principled society is flawed and we should return to a feudal state where the wealthy get to piss on all the plebeians because who fucking cares about peons.